Sitting of 10 May 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet General Rose to discuss the progress of the humanitarian relief operation.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Progress of the humanitarian relief operation in the former Yugoslavia is a matter for the United Nations and the humanitarian aid agencies working in theatre. British troops in Bosnia continue to assist with the escorting of humanitarian aid convoys and the exchange of detainees and displaced persons.
    Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in recognising the superb contribution made by British troops in the delivery of humanitarian aid? Will he especially recognise the effort put in by the Gordon Highlanders, who are celebrating their 200th anniversary this year and were used as a top-up last year? This year they are due to merge with the Queen's Own Highlanders. Even at this late stage, in the light of their proud history and continuing commitments, will the Secretary of State reconsider the need for that merger?
    Mr. Rifkind: I give unstinting praise to the work of the Gordon Highlanders and, indeed, all British forces in Bosnia who have represented their country and our armed forces in such an exemplary fashion. I recognise the sadness for any regiment facing amalgamation, but I emphasise that all the finest traditions of the Gordon and Queen's Own Highlanders will be fully sustained in the formation of the new Highland regiment.—a regiment of which the people of the north-east of Scotland will have every reason to be proud.
    Dr. David Clark: Notwithstanding the fact that General Rose is an officer of the United Nations Protection Force, will the Secretary of State make it his business to seek him out and make it clear to him that he has the full support of this House? Will he congratulate him on all his imaginative efforts in bringing about peace in parts of Bosnia and reassure him that he has the full support of the House in trying to extend that peace? Finally, and perhaps
    138
    most important, will he indicate to General Rose the numbers of British troops to be made available to him when the peace accord is finally brokered?
    Mr. Rifkind: The UNPROFOR commander is well aware of the very high regard in which he is held in this House and throughout the world for the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the United Kingdom is one of the foremost countries in the world with regard to the provision of military support to the United Nations in Bosnia. Clearly it is important that no responsibilities are put on UNPROFOR which are incompatible and inconsistent with the forces available to it. We hope that all countries will show the same responsibility that this country has shown in supporting the United Nations in its difficult task.

    Contractorisation
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of contractorisation on military career structures.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Military career structures are reviewed regularly, taking into account all factors including my Department's contractorisation and market-testing programme.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunity for people from varied backgrounds to achieve qualifications that would not otherwise be open to them is one of the admirable things that our armed forces offer? I am thinking especially of Welbeck college and Shrivenham. Will my hon. Friend therefore assure the House that in the review of contractorisation he will bear in mind the effect on career structures, especially on the technical side, to ensure that they are not prejudiced, which would disadvantage the operation of our troops generally?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. It is important that the armed services retain skilled technical personnel and I am sure that they will do so, whatever the outcome of the "Front Line First" studies. As for recruiting and future career structures, there is no sign that recruiting is in any sense becoming disappointing. All three services are succeeding in recruiting more than 90 per cent. of their manpower targets—a figure which we regard as satisfactory.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that contractorisation goes beyond movement in career structure and also affects the quality of life of service people? The fewer service people there are on a base, the more guard duties they have to do. In addition, the whole ethos of the military establishment has been eroded by contractorisation. The Minister can visit Army camps and RAF stations and find young men with earrings and pigtails. That is not the service I know and recognise. Contractorisation has gone too far with too little thought.
    Mr. Aitken: I agree that ethos is important in service life and there is no question of its being destroyed by "Front Line First" or any other study. We have a duty, however, to make sure that the armed services get the best possible equipment and support services and that maximum value for money is achieved. That is what our

    139
    studies are all about and they are progressing satisfactorily without doing the damage that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. David Shaw: If my hon. Friend is considering the benefits of contractorisation in relation to the military bands, will he bear in mind that there is a substantial petition under way to keep the Royal Marines school of music at Deal?
    Mr. Aitken: As my constituency is immediately adjacent to that of my hon. Friend, and as I live only two miles from Deal, I can assure him that I have not missed the very trenchant signals that he and the many supporters of the Royal Marines school of music at Deal are sending. They will, of course, be considered by Ministers before any decisions are reached.

    Departmental Housing
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer his Department's surplus housing to ensure that it can be used for low-cost rented accommodation.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Wherever possible, surplus married quarters are offered for sale to housing associations. In some circumstances, properties may be offered on lease to local authorities or housing associations for use as rented accommodation.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that a number of his ministerial colleagues have admitted that neither housing associations nor local authorities can afford to purchase MOD surplus housing stock? Will he therefore take a positive step to assist local authorities by supporting the Labour party's demand that local authorities be allowed to keep 100 per cent. of receipts from the sale of council housing instead of the miserly 25 per cent. allowed by the Government?
    Mr. Hanley: I would rather stick to my own departmental responsibilities and explain that there are some 70,000 married quarters in the defence estate. Fewer than 10,000 are now vacant for one reason or another, but the record that we have established over the past few years is impressive. In the past year, we have sold more than 2,000 houses and we plan to sell 5,000 more over the next five years. We also contribute to helping the homeless and have leased more than 1,000 vacant homes to local authorities for rent.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that when selling off surplus housing stock, in these days of putting the "Front Line First", he will not lose sight of the need to secure an adequate return for the taxpayer at large?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have to balance the interests of the taxpayer with the interests of those who serve in the armed forces. I believe that the housing discount scheme and other schemes that give priority to those in the armed forces achieve that balance.
    Mr. William Ross: When the hon. Gentleman is disposing of such accommodation, will he look carefully at the quality of accommodation that has to be used by the
    140
    Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland, where three of my constituency members were burned to death very recently? Will he apply some of the receipts from the sale of surplus dwellings to improve that accommodation? When does he expect to receive a full detailed report of that tragedy and will he publish it?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point which is more about barrack sleeping accommodation than married quarters. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is an important issue which must be resolved. A full inquiry is being carried out and as soon as we receive the results I will make sure that he receives a copy.

    Rosyth
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the Royal Navy concerning the future of Rosyth naval base.
    Mr. Aitken: The Royal Navy is fully involved in the "Front Line First" studies concerning all naval bases, including Rosyth.
    Mr. Salmond: The first thing that will be noticed in Scotland is that the Secretary of State has ducked the question again. Can the junior Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State has seen the completed study group report on Rosyth naval base? Why do even his Back-Bench colleagues believe that it recommends closure of the site? Does the Minister accept that the general feeling in Scotland is that in any contest with the south coast Rosyth will be sacrificed? Given the Prime Minister's stated commitment to open government, will it not be appropriate to publish the study group report and allow the people of Scotland to enter the debate before the Government reach their conclusion?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going over the top. He missed an excellent Adjournment debate on Friday afternoon, when many of his questions were answered in detail. The study teams for all the studies have now finished their work. Their reports will shortly be considered by Ministers for final decisions, but only when we have studied the reports and had full discussions will those decisions be made. I think that that answers the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Rosyth naval base does not go the way of Scapa Flow and Invergordon? Were it to do so, would it not be yet another symbol of Britain's maritime decline? Is not its maintenance necessary if the Royal Navy is to remain a blue-water oceanic navy and not a mere channel patrol for the south coast of England?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's points will be considered by Ministers when we reach a final decision on this matter. However, in view of his strictures about shrinkage, I should make it clear that although in recent years the size of the Royal Navy has gone down in terms of fleet numbers, there has not been a similar reduction in the size of the four base port facilities. Indeed, we continue to operate four base ports despite a considerably reduced fleet. We must consider carefully the whole balance of naval infrastructure versus the size of the fleet, and that is what the study is largely about.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that the various decisions made by Ministers, including the Prime Minister in 1991, that the Rosyth naval base was vital to the defence of the realm, were made in the full knowledge of the impact of the end of the cold war on naval commitments? Does he further agree that Rosyth remains important to the defence of the realm and that the promises made about its future should be kept?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady has rightly been a strong advocate for the continued existence of Rosyth and we listen carefully to her. However, she does not strengthen her case by exaggerating promises that were never made —[Interruption.] To put the record straight, I shall repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in February 1991, when he made it clear that no decision had been taken to close Rosyth or any other naval base. He said:
    "We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 159.]
    That falls a long way short of the pledge or promise inferred by the hon. Lady. The record shows that the Government have always played their hand fairly and openly and without giving any false promises to anyone.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be the widest possible consultation before any decision is made on the closure of any Royal Navy base? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that our right hon. and learned Friend recently visited HMS Malabar and that any final decision on its closure will not be taken until there has been widespread consultation?
    Mr. Aitken: I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend made the visit to which my hon. Friend referred. I also confirm that before any final decisions are taken there will be fair and widespread consultations on any proposals put forward at the end of the "Front Line First" study.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Minister not feel even slightly embarrassed that although one Cabinet member has said that he is prepared to fight publicly and privately for the retention of Rosyth, all that has emanated from the Secretary of State has been the "silence of the lamb"? Will he at least assure the House that before any decisions are taken on Rosyth all the alternative costings will be made available? Does he appreciate that if he refuses to do so, in addition to the accusations of betrayal in Scotland there will be accusations of a financial whitewash?
    Mr. Aitken: There is no question of a whitewash. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that before final decisions are taken all Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be consulted. Once our proposals have been announced, we shall publish the information on which our decisions are based and there will be a fair opportunity to consider the proposals and the information contained in them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will recall that the last time we went round that track and the recommendation to close Rosyth naval base was before Ministers, it was rejected. Instead of changing one of the four base ports, we closed the only training port. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will receive a delegation from me if he decides to close Rosyth naval base, because such a decision will change the naval balance? We can put up an even better
    142
    case for a privatised naval base in Portland to do the training work much more cheaply than if it were sent to Plymouth.
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's question emphasises that strong regional and constituency interests are quite properly at stake in the various decisions. The ministerial team at the Ministry of Defence plays fair and takes the defence interests, above all, into consideration. On my hon. Friend's request to bring a delegation to see me, he has done that in the past and I have always tried to give him a fair and courteous hearing. I should be glad to receive a delegation from him at some time in the future if he thinks it necessary.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part the Territorial Army will play in the planning of the defence budget.
    Mr. Hanley: The Territorial Army plays no formal part in the budgetary process, although we do, of course, take the Territorial Army fully into account in all our defence budgetary planning, and there is regular contact between departmental staff and the Territorial Army at all levels.
    Mr. Enright: The Minister will be aware how efficient the Territorial Army unit is in my area. Will he therefore promise that there will be no cuts in the Territorial Army there, particularly as the high incidence of unemployment means that for many of my constituents being in the Territorial Army is their only stake in society?
    Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions on the future size and shape of the Territorial Army have yet been taken. Announcements will be made before long, but, whatever the outcome of current studies, the Territorial Army will continue both to play a vital role in supporting and augmenting the Regular Army and to make a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. The Territorial Army is an integral part of the Army's mobilised order of battle.
    Sir Peter Hordern: As we shall always need strong reserve forces, does my hon. Friend agree that the Territorial Army is a cost-effective way of providing those reserves? Will he say something about the present limitations on the role of the Territorial Army in serving abroad with Her Majesty's forces? Will he consider introducing legislation so that the Territorial Army and our reserve forces can play a more active part in that respect?
    Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The Territorial Army is extremely efficient and effective. Changes are in the pipeline to try to ensure that its members can be deployed abroad more easily. On 19 April, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that a pilot scheme to test the feasibility of using the Territorial Army in support of the Regular Army would be run in the Falklands. A platoon will go from July to November this year and a company will go from March to July next year. It may help the House if I say that that scheme has been oversubscribed and the group has now been formed. We look forward to a most successful experiment.
    Mr. Olner: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the Air Training Corps, an excellent part of which is in my

    143
    constituency of Nuneaton, also needs funding? Although the Air Training Corps depends on voluntary contributions, it needs the continuing support of the Minister and the Ministry.
    Mr. Hanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider all three forces in seeking to ensure the effective use of our reserve forces.

    "Front Line First"
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on "Front Line First".
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to be able to make a statement on the outcome of the defence costs study before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Mr. Gill: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would be the first to agree that far more important to the armed services than reviews and studies is an undertaking that there will be adequate funds for them to discharge their responsibilities in the future. Given that defence is the essential insurance policy that this country cannot afford to be without, would he consider it unreasonable to spend no less than 10 per cent. of national annual expenditure on our defence forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, the expenditure that is made available must be related to the commitments of our armed forces. There is a clear contrast between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. The Government have given an unequivocal assurance that there will be no further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces. The Opposition have given no such assurance in relation to the defence review that they wish to initiate, which would presumably result in serious and savage cuts to the fighting capability of our armed forces.
    Mr. Macdonald: Given the emphasis placed on contractorisation as part of "Front Line First", will the Secretary of State give a commitment that he will not approve any major reduction of the facilities at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides, but that a full contractorisation study will be made to realise some of the benefits that could be gained through contractorisation in the Hebrides?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the significant and substantial economic importance of the range to the local community in the Hebrides. Clearly, all options are being considered as to the best way to ensure that the needs of the Army are met. In those studies, we are also conscious of the wider implications for the local community.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when the decisions are made on "Front Line First" and the statement is made, the statement will be primarily concerned with the back-up forces? In examining the contribution made by the Air Training Corps and the Air Cadets, as was mentioned earlier, is it not important to recognise the contribution that they and the other cadet forces make to the community at large? It is cheaper to keep good youngsters good than to try to make bad ones good.
    Mr. Rifkind: I recognise that the cadet forces have performed a valuable role in giving an initial experience of
    144
    service life to young people, who quite often go on to a career in the armed forces. They also ensure, even for those who do not to on to a career in the armed forces, a wider awareness of the important role played by our uniformed personnel in the wider interests of the nation.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State aware that the concept surrounding "Front Line First" is dangerously outmoded because modern armed forces operate as an integral whole and any change in logistical support will vitally affect operational capabilities? With that in mind, will he scrap his current flawed and piecemeal approach, follow the example of our allies and have a full defence review so that we can truly meet the security needs of this country?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friends should welcome the clear statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made. What he is calling for is a defence review that would be able to cut the fighting capability of our armed forces. That is a clear implication of the freedom that such a review would have under a Labour Government. Her Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have made it clear that we have no intention of making any further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces. That is the clear distinction between Government and Opposition on that issue.

    Army Chaplaincy Service
    Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the Army chaplaincy service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hanley: Chaplaincy services are being examined along with many other areas as part of the defence costs study, announcements on the broad outcome of which we hope to make in July.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Army chaplaincy service forms an integral part of the Army? Will he use this opportunity to pay tribute to the 190 Army chaplains for their work, not only at a spiritual level but at a pastoral level as well? They are among the unsung heroes of the Army: we need them and we should salute them.
    Mr. Hanley: I willingly pay tribute to the chaplaincy service. Chaplains play an important role in fostering the mental health of soldiers, particularly in circumstances in which soldiers are under stress or likely to come under stress at short notice. In addition to their spiritual role, the chaplains provide a valuable welfare role to service men and their families. I should also tell my hon. Friend that there are not only heroes, but heroines as well.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), will the Minister assure the House that the chaplaincy service will be neither contractorised nor privatised?
    Mr. Hanley: I have a sneaking suspicion that we shall not be market testing the chaplaincy service.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider bringing together the chaplaincy services in all the armed forces? If that happens, are they likely to come to Eltham palace?
    Mr. Hanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would expect me not to make any statements at this stage, but to wait for the announcement following the defence costs study.

    Departmental Personnel (Employment Prospects)
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about future employment prospects for his Department's personnel.
    Mr. Hanley: It is our aim to ensure that we have the right balance of service and civilian manpower to enable the armed forces to carry out the full range of tasks that we require of them.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the proposed market testing of the Defence Accounts Agency on Merseyside is causing fear and anxiety among the 850 employees there? They are worried about their employment prospects. Will the Minister concede that the commercial confidentiality of the information processed at that office is in danger of being jeopardised, thereby putting more British defence jobs at risk? Why does he not tell the Treasury that that is a privatisation too far?
    Mr. Hanley: I readily admit that the hon. Gentleman has fought hard for the unit involved. However, we have conducted our review of it fully and openly. Trade unions were consulted about the proposals, the changes were fully explained to staff and those who must move have been told about the relocation allowances that will be available to them. Nine of the posts have already been transferred and we expect to move about 19 to Bath, Glasgow and Swindon later this year, seven to London towards the end of 1995 and the balance to RAF Wyton in 1996.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, among service personnel, none are more popular than British Army bands, whose splendid standards of excellence are world famous as a result of the unique training that they receive at the Royal Military school of music at Kneller Hall in Twickenham?
    Mr. Hanley: I willingly recognise my hon. and musical Friend's interest in Kneller Hall. I also recognise that for him Kneller Hall is the front line and the rest of the British Army is support.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: A few moments ago, I understood the Secretary of State to say that there would be no further cuts in front-line manpower. We shall examine that claim carefully in July, when the defence costs study is published. It is rumoured that there will be at least 25,000 further cuts.
    Is the Secretary of State aware that in the statement on defence estimates published in April, for the first time, no targets for manpower were set? What is the motive for that? Is the Secretary of State, in effect, trying to disguise further, regular cuts? May we have an assurance that in July, after the study has been published, there will be period of calm and stability when our services can look forward to a stable future?
    Mr. Hanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little muddled on three counts. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that there would be no cut in the front-line capability of our armed forces—he was not talking about support. Secondly, in the "Statement on the
    146
    Defence Estimates 1994", civilian numbers are forecast to fall to 128,700–113,000 based in the United Kingdom and 15,700 locally entered. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that Labour is fighting under a European socialist manifesto, which contains a specific pledge to cut armed forces.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm, on the civilian side, that while there has been a progressive reduction in the number of vital scientists and engineers, the one category of civil servants that has expanded in the past decade has been that dealing with budget holding? May I suggest that, in the defence costs study, the place to use the knife is the growing army of people involved in counting to the last penny?
    Mr. Hanley: I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the objectives of the defence costs study.

    Defence Personnel
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how soon he expects to announce the results of his review of defence personnel.
    Mr. Rifkind: The independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service is required to report to me within 12 months of its starting work.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is no good carrying out reviews of personnel, equipment and other things until the Government have carried out a full review of what our defence commitments ought to be and that such surveys will have no credibility unless we know what our defence forces are expected to do?
    Mr. Rifkind: We already know exactly what our defence forces are required to do; it is something to which the Government give their total commitment. Unlike the Opposition, we do not intend to contemplate further reductions in our fighting capability.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be considerable support among those on the Conservative Benches for significant reductions in the number of civil servants at the Ministry of Defence? Many of us have thought in previous years that, when there have been almost as many civil servants as soldiers, we had got the balance wrong.
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that the defence costs study is considering civilian manpower as well as uniformed personnel. Clear evidence is emerging of considerable scope for further improvements in that sphere.
    Mr. Martlew: May I ask about the future employment prospects of the work force at RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley? The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has said three times that there needs to be a reduction of £85 million over 10 years in the budget of the equipment supply depot. The work force at RAF Carlisle has given him proposals that will save £85 million. Is the target still £85 million, or has the Minister moved the goalposts? Will he confirm that there will be an announcement on the future of RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley next week?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces recently visited

    147
    RAF Carlisle. We are evaluating the various representations that have been made in response to the announcement made earlier this year, and we shall make a further announcement in due course.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the military situation in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina remains generally calm, although sporadic small arms and mortar fire continues, together with some artillery fire in certain areas. The ceasefires in central Bosnia, Sarajevo and Gorazde are generally holding.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon and learned Friend is resisting the siren calls for more troop deployments to Bosnia, but does he agree that the complex situation in Bosnia demonstrates that Britain, when it needs to co-operate, must do so with NATO? Does he also agree that we must, however, retain the capability to operate independently in the defence of British interests?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. NATO has been, and remains, central to our policy on the defence of the realm and any question of closer European co-operation on defence matters is, of course, subject to the overriding importance of maintaining the primacy of NATO as fundamental to our defence interests. That is, and will remain, our defence policy. Some of the remarks that were attributed, I hope mistakenly, to my hon. Friend in an article in The Sunday Telegraph were quite bizarre. We have no intention whatsoever of supplanting NATO as the central plank of our defence policy.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the military situation in Bosnia has dictated that British forces are now involved in three roles—humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and peacemaking?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have certainly been willing to see British forces used in Bosnia to assist the United Nations to carry out its mandate. That mandate does not involve a combat role for British forces and nor will it be allowed to be changed in that direction. We support warmly any way in which the British forces can assist the United Nations in its humanitarian and peacekeeping role.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with those British soldiers and others who have expressed concern at Mr. Akashi allowing Serbian tanks to pass through the exclusion zone? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Could there be a little less noise in the House? It is extremely difficult to hear. Could the conversations be quieter, please?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is for Mr. Akashi to explain his thinking in allowing the movement of Serb tanks through that zone. I accept that, on the face of it, it was a most unexpected exercise of his discretion, but we hope that he will ensure that his approach is consistent with the UN's policy.

    Defence Capability
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as regards Britain's
    148
    capacity to meet her own defence needs and her political obligations and military contributions to international peacekeeping.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government are confident that our armed forces are fully able to carry out the broad range of operations that they currently undertake.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Secretary of State notice that, during the poorly reported Army debate last week, Conservative Back Bencher after Conservative Back Bencher spoke about the crisis of morale among our service men and service women and their concern about the arbitrary withdrawal of units? Is there not a need, demonstrated by his own colleagues, for a fundamental review of our armed services to match commitments with resources?
    Mr. Rifkind: What I noticed about the Army debate last week was that, so unconcerned are the massed ranks of the Labour party in the interests of the Army, hardly a single Labour Member graced the Opposition Benches. I am also conscious that the Labour party can hardly speak with authority about those matters when the European socialist manifesto, personally signed by the Leader of the Opposition, calls for further reductions in the fighting capability of our armed forces.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time to sit down and reflect on whether it is appropriate that millions of hours of military and civilian officials' time and many more millions of pounds are being squandered in this ghastly Treasury-driven "Front Line First" exercise? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his time and that of his Ministers, his officials and the military brass would be better devoted to ensuring that our forces in the front line have the equipment that they require? Specifically, is not it unsatisfactory and unacceptable that British military aircraft should be sent into combat over Bosnia without the means of self-protection against missiles, which could be provided for a fraction of what has been spent by his Department on management consultants in recent years?
    Mr. Rifkind: The second part of my hon. Friend's question was totally inconsistent and incompatible with the first part of his question. The whole point of the "Front Line First" study is to ensure—as I am sure my hon. Friend would wish—that resources within the Ministry of Defence are concentrated on the needs of the front line of our fighting forces in a way that I believe that my hon. Friend will applaud fully.
    Mr. Home Robertson: While the Minister is seeking advice on those matters, is he absolutely satisfied that it is appropriate for him to be recruiting into his Department as a civil servant someone who has recently been a high-profile party politician in the city of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, anyone who applies to the civil service for employment is assessed against exactly the same criteria, irrespective of his or her personal or political background.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, increasingly, the defence needs of the United Kingdom will be met by closer co-operation with our European allies? In that respect, may I congratulate him on his frankness yesterday, particularly in the rather febrile

    149
    atmosphere of the moment, in acknowledging that a common defence policy was an inevitable consequence of the Maastricht treaty and that a common defence policy will be a key subject for discussion at the intergovernmental conference of 1996?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had fully acquainted himself with the facts, as he normally does, he would appreciate that yesterday the United Kingdom successfully insisted on ensuring that any development of European co-operation should happen within the framework of the Atlantic alliance. Any proposal for closer European co-operation that undermined that alliance would be unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government both now and in the future.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with senior Army officers about future plans for the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have regular discussions with senior Army officers, including Brigadier Holmes, on a wide range of issues, including future plans for the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Rathbone: In those conversations, will my hon. Friend resist any temptation further to cut the territorial forces, by 15 per cent. or by any greater or lesser amount, especially after the cuts of 30 per cent. or more made under "Options for Change"? Will he bear in mind especially the calls by the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment of Sussex and the Fourth Royal Green Jackets, with which I was proud to serve, because, as the Regular Army is cut, the reserves are all the more important?
    Mr. Hanley: As I said earlier—I shall say it again to my hon. Friend—no decisions on the future size and shape of the Territorial Army have yet been taken, although there will be announcements before long. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his letters; they have formed part of the consultation exercise.

  PRIME MINISTER

    ENGAGEMENTS
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Shepherd: During the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that over the past year, industrial output in the United Kingdom rose—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that industrial output in this country rose by 3.7 per cent.—[interruption]—while in Germany, Japan, France and Italy industrial output fell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is but one of a large number of good news stories abounding in this country at this time that deserve wider currency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm—[Interruption.] Will he confirm that it is still permissible to publish good news in this country?
    The Prime Minister: As far as I could hear my hon. Friend over a fairly turbulent House, I believe that he was referring to the good news about the economy that has been evident over recent weeks. Good news is certainly allowed, but I fear that it may often be masked by less important matters these days. The fact is that the British economy is growing, has been growing for some time and is expected to continue to grow. Thankfully, unemployment is falling and is expected to continue to fall.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the cry for a referendum on Europe further and compelling evidence that the Prime Minister's Cabinet and party are hopelessly divided? Is not it astonishing that battle is permitted to rage even within the Treasury? Does the Prime Minister support his Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, I am sceptical about referendums. I made that clear during the Maastricht debate, and I have not changed my mind. There is not even a specific agenda for the intergovernmental conference yet. I do not believe that the question of a referendum arises now, and it certainly does not need to be decided now. It is not yet possible to say what the outcome of the conference will be, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not intend to come back to the House with a package that the House would find unacceptable.
    Mr. John Smith: On the question of referendums, does the Prime Minister recall saying something to the House on 6 May last year? His exact words were:
    "We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums."—[Official Report, 6 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 284.]
    Today he expressed scepticism. Is the movement from opposition to scepticism because he is running in front of the anti-Europeans?
    The Prime Minister: If he had listened carefully, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have also heard me say a moment or so ago that I have not changed my mind. As to a single European currency, as I have said before, decisions on that are a long way off. That will not be determined in 1996. No one expects that this Parliament is going to be asked to decide on a single European currency. That would be a matter for a future Parliament, in circumstances that no one can predict. It was my negotiating at Maastricht that made it clear that this Department would have the right to decide on that matter at a future date. Even if I wish to, I could not bind a future Parliament on its decisions.
    Mr. John Smith: If that answer by the Prime Minister is to be construed as ruling out a referendum in the future, can we be assured that every member of his Government will be asked to support it or will be asked to resign?
    The Prime Minister: I have just set out the position clearly for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have made it entirely clear to him that it would not be appropriate to make a commitment now about a future Parliament's decision. Even if I wished to, I could not bind a future Parliament. My personal decision on referendums has been made entirely clear on other occasions and again today. I reiterate that I have not changed my mind.
    Mr. Trotter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a fact that if we were to have a Labour Government, we would inevitably have higher taxation and weaker defences, and that our policy on Europe would be destroyed by socialism? Is not that a message that all of us on the Government Benches should be constantly conveying?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that a Labour Government would be a very improbable premise. Even last Thursday, which appears to have buoyed them, they secured a lower share of the vote than we secured in the last general election. My hon. Friend is entirely right. A Labour Government would mean substantial defence cuts, higher expenditure and higher taxation, and would also mean signing up as part of a federal European state. That is no future for this country and will not be accepted by the people of this country at the next general election.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that his answer on the question of a referendum will serve only to confirm his reputation as the maybe man? How can the British people be asked to vote on the question of Europe by a Government who are so divided on that issue and a Prime Minister whose answer on the key questions cannot get further than "perhaps"? Will he now tell us whether his answer is supposed to construe the meaning that he is opposed to a referendum, under any circumstances, as a result of which there might be a substantial change in Britain's relation with Brussels—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is at his own game as a veritable opportunist for all seasons. I made perfectly clear a few moments ago what is my personal position on referendums. I also made it clear that, in 1996, I am not going to bring back anything remotely likely to be unacceptable to the House and I made it clear that on a far future date, the decision on a single European currency must be made by this House. I cannot bind the House and I do not intend to try to bind the House at this distance in time.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Is not it the case that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a Government who introduced a referendum—an alien concept, inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Is not it absurd for those who argue that the authority of this House is being usurped by Brussels to advocate the use of a device that would undermine the authority of the House?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend points to something with which the House has become familiar—the selective memory of the Leader of the Opposition about what he has stood for in the past. The points made by my right hon. Friend are undeniable and I agree with them.
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wicks: Has the Prime Minister been told that since his campaign visit to Croydon, the wise people of Croydon threw out the Tory council after more than 100 years and elected a majority Labour council for the first time ever?
    152
    We thank him for that visit. Whom does he blame for the Croydon Tory disaster: the local Conservatives or his own Government?
    The Prime Minister: Let me mention that I visited Westminster and Wandsworth as well. I congratulate the new Croydon councillors on their success in the elections and I sympathise with the Croydon electors who will have higher bills to pay and a less efficient administration.
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Deva: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom attracted the highest level of foreign investment of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1991 and 1992? Would the Labour party's proposed increases in business taxes, enunciated in the European socialist manifesto, add encouragement to that vote of confidence in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. We have built up a position over many years as a favoured country for inward investment. That is apparent in Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, Wales and many other places. There is no doubt that that position would fall away if we followed the policies advocated by Opposition Front-Bench Members. A social chapter would inhibit inward investment, as would the 35–hour week, a minimum wage and plans to harmonise taxes upwards, all of which the Leader of the Opposition has signed up to in the socialist European manifesto. That manifesto is binding on the Labour party as, I hope, the Labour party will make clear to every elector in the forthcoming European elections.
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Connarty: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are now genuinely concerned that, should they fall ill, their pensions and savings will be used to pay for care that they thought they had paid for through their taxes? Will he take on the bloodsuckers in the Treasury and in the Department of Social Security who are threatening the last vestige of compassion in the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing resources in the national health service and increasing the provision of assistance to people in the national health service. Indeed, the national health service is the one service in Government that is guaranteed a real-terms increase, year on year, as we examine the relative proportions of public expenditure. There is no doubt about the growth, both for the elderly and for other people, in the national health service, and that growth will continue.
    Mr. Lester: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend's wise words on the subject of a referendum. Will he reflect on the fact that when the Labour party had a

    153
    referendum to provide party unity, that not only created the Social Democrat party but kept it in opposition for 14 years?
    The Prime Minister: So far; there are more years of opposition to come.
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mudie: Why, only two weeks after expressing support for the aims of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, did the Prime Minister allow the cynical, Government-inspired sabotage of the Bill last Friday?
    The Prime Minister: No one could have accepted a Bill, as drafted, with a cost compliance calculated at £17 billion and a yearly on-cost of £1 billion. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made clear in the debate on Friday, we intend within the next six months to consult on proposals to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, access to goods and services, financial services and access to buildings. We also intend to consult on the establishment of a new advisory body on disability. Those consultations will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. At the end of that process, we shall consider assisting in the drafting of practical and workable legislation that will help the disabled.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems facing not only this country but the rest of the world is the increase in drugs and the terrible effect that that has on crime? Can he give an assurance that the Government and the police will give top priority to tackling the drug barons and their vile trade?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sum total of expenditure to tackle the drugs menace exceeds something like £500 million a year. We are seeking, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to bring together all the action that exists across Government so that we can most effectively target the drugs programme. We are also consulting our European partners—notably Germany—to see what can be done at the European level to assist in preventing drugs from coming to this country in the first place.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: As the leader of the most unpopular Government this century and with a divided shambles of a party beside and behind him, does the Prime Minister think that it would be better to clear the air and have a general election now?
    The Prime Minister: At the last election, we received the highest number of votes that any party has ever received in a general election, and we received a five-year mandate to carry out our policies. I intend to exercise that five-year mandate. Then the hon. Gentleman will get his election and then if he personally is re-elected, he can continue to sit where he sits now.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Denis MacShane, Esq., for Rotherham.

Personal Statement
3.31 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): On Friday last, during consideration of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I stated in response to a question from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that my Department had played no part in the drafting of any amendments tabled by a number of my hon. Friends, and that
"to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area". —[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
Immediately afterwards, in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I drew attention to the fact that the Lord President would be replying to a question from him, which asked how many amendments had been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That answer confirmed that amendments tabled on 3 May had been drafted in Parliamentary Counsel's office.
My statement on Friday that my Department had not drafted any amendments was true, but, as I explained in a letter to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Department, with my authority, had been involved in their preparation. I therefore felt that I should offer this clarification of my remarks to the House as a whole.
I very much regret that by not giving a fuller explanation at the time the effect of my reply was misleading, and I offer my unreserved apologies to the House.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for Government Members to congratulate Scottish National party Members on converting so many Labour Members to their party colours?
Madam Speaker: It is for individual Members to congratulate whom they wish.
Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is not only the hon. Member who misled the House on Friday. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), to whom I have given notice that I would be raising this matter, said on Friday:
"the new clause and amendments were mine and mine only"—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 974.].
Yesterday the hon. Lady said:
"it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 23.]
It is clear that, along with the Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has misled the House. Has the hon. Lady requested your permission, Madam Speaker, to make a similar statement of apology to her colleagues?
Madam Speaker: I have not received any such indication from the hon. Lady.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Just a moment. I am answering a point of order, and I am on my feet.
Of course, I cannot investigate the accuracy of everything that hon. Members say to the House, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) is alleging a very serious parliamentary offence. Therefore, as he and the House know, the hon. Gentleman must write to me. If it is a matter of privilege, it will be dealt with.
Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) accused me directly of casting a slur on her reputation and yesterday in the House asserted that the Labour party was trying to use disabled people as a political football. Will the hon. Member get off scot free again?
Madam Speaker: Providing that what is said by the hon. Lady, or by any hon. Member, is within the rules and procedures of the House, I have no alternative but to accept it. [Interruption.] Order. I cannot investigate every comment which is made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have heard—not today, because we cannot question a personal statement, but on previous occasions—that the Government allowed amendments to be drafted which would suit the Government. What has not been explained properly, but what ought to be, is that those amendments were drafted

157
not to suit the Government but so that the Government could turn them down. That is not what the Minister told us today. The Government were so Machiavellian that they drew up amendments which they could conveniently say they were not prepared to accept. That is the dirty manoeuvre, and that is why the Minister should resign.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not take any further points of order on that matter. That was not a point of order, in any event.
Mr. Heald rose—
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I will hear it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) only made a comment. It was a bogus point of order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have written to you on the issue of contempt, and I have accused the Minister of being in contempt of the House—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. He has written to me on a matter of contempt and privilege. I must deal with it in that way.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not the central issue that we have heard a personal statement from the Minister that the Government were involved in dirty tricks to try to block the Bill on Friday?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand our procedures. There can be no proceedings after a personal statement.
Mr. McMaster: Further to that, Madam Speaker. We now have a decision of the House which surely should not stand because of the tactics which were deployed. Can we have another opportunity to report the Bill?
Madam Speaker: If hon. Members wish to pursue the question of the future of the Bill, they must find other ways of doing so. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:: On a point of order, Madam
Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate?
Mr. O'Brien: It relates—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is thinking on his feet. Is it a point of order for me? It had better be.
Mr. O'Brien: My point of order is this. On a statement such as the personal statement that we have heard today, which related to an incident in the House of great importance to all of us, is a different procedure available to Ministers by which they could make such statements which would allow us to question them about it? They are serious matters.
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. Perhaps we can move on.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.101(1) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

TRANSPORT
That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]
Question agreed to.
Madam Speaker: Motions 2 and 3 on the coal industry and value added tax are not moved.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.101(1) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EDUCATION
That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]
Question agreed to.

Security Industry (Licensing)
3.40 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of the security industry; and for connected purposes.
There is a growing perceived need for the work of private security firms, but at present there is no apparent check on their operations and no apparent way in which their work with members of the public and small businesses can be certified, registered or inspected to protect those same members of the public. Their work, principally in residential areas, involves not policing but an operation of merely maintaining a presence to protect the security of householders. As such, it is being welcomed increasingly in many areas of different types, not least in my constituency.
In the absence of any licensing or security procedures for such firms, there is a fear that villains will masquerade as honest men and, in doing so, provide not security but an opportunity for further crime. Similarly, in the absence of any provision for a check on the financing of such firms, there is the risk that ordinary members of the public will find themselves paying for the additional security that such firms offer only to discover that the organisers of the firms are men of straw, as appears to have happened, for example, with a firm known as Town and Country which was operating in my constituency recently.
Therefore, a measure to introduce regulation, licensing and inspection for private security firms is overdue. Indeed, it appears to have the support not only of large sections of the police, including the expressed support of the chief constable in my area, but the full support of the British security industry.
The Bill provides for the licensing of the security industry. I must underline that it merely provides powers which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can choose whether to use and to what extent. It would in no sense force him to go down a road that he did not wish to follow. It merely gives him a suggestion of a road that he might usefully follow in order to provide greater reassurance to my constituents and others.
The Bill would cover security services provided by personnel whose main or only function was the protection of premises, property and persons. It would cover personnel whose main or only function was the prevention and detection of theft from retail premises. It would cover personnel and vehicles for the secure transport of cash and other items of value. However, it would not cover, nor would it seek to impinge in any way on, the work of a police force maintained under the Police Act 1964 or any other Act or any directly managed or contracted out prison or any prisoner escort arrangements within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
160
The Bill would not impinge in any way on the legitimate, valued and valuable work of our police and prison services. It is designed merely to act as a proper adjunct to the existing work of those services and any necessary expansion of it. The Bill would empower the Home Secretary to license security firms attempting to provide a service to members of the public and to withdraw any firm's licence. It would empower my right hon. and learned Friend to impose fees for such licensing and regulation procedures so that no charge would fall on the public sector. It would empower my right hon. and learned Friend to decide a commencement date for any or all of the provisions. In other words, the powers that it contains could be brought in at the convenience of the Home Secretary and of the prison and police services and as was generally deemed appropriate. For obvious reasons, the Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland.
Like many other people, I am always wary about the introduction of additional enforcement licensing and regulation, which is often unnecessary. However, I suggest that in this case it is necessary not only to provide for the proper expansion of an industry already seen by many people as a necessary part of life but also to deal with a number of deficiencies and dangers in the industry.
At present, no training policy is applied across the industry as a whole. Under the Bill the Home Secretary would have power to bring in, or to empower others to bring in, a training policy regarded as appropriate to the work that the industry is peculiarly capable of doing. At present there is nothing to prevent criminals or ex-criminals from setting up security firms and selling their services to the public. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary would be empowered to stop just this sort of practice.
There is a fear among many people that if we do not allow the security industry to grow naturally, as appropriate, under suitable regulation we shall open the door to something that I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to see on our streets—the growth of vigilante groups, people's armies and workers' militias and of all the other things that we have seen in many other countries. We do not want to see such things imported into the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Stern, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Alex Carlile, Sir Jerry Wiggin, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Harold Elletson and Mr. Toby Jessel.

SECURITY INDUSTRY (LICENSING)
Mr. Michael Stern accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of the security industry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
Orders of the Day

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Ordered,
  That the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, except new Clauses relating to burdens imposed by public bodies and to the duration and expiry of Chapter I of Part I, amendments relating to Clause 5, Schedule 1, Clauses 6 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 and 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 6, Clauses 17 to 19, Schedule 7, Clauses 20 to 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 9, Clauses 30 to 40, Schedule 10, Clauses 41 to 47, Schedule 11, Clauses 48 to 58, Schedule 12, New Clauses relating to burdens imposed by public bodies, Clauses 59 to 66, Schedule 13, Clauses 67 to 71, Schedule 14, Clause 72, New Schedules, New Clauses relating to the duration and expiry of Chapter I of Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 4—[Mr. Conway.]

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
    New Clause 12

      CONTROLS ON FUND-RAISING FOR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS: EXCLUSION OF CONNECTED COMPANIES
      '.—(1)In Part II of the Charities Act 1992 (control of fund-raising for charitable institutions), section 58(1) (definitions) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In the definition of "commercial participator", after "person" there shall be inserted "(apart from a company connected with the institution)".
      (3) In paragraph (a) of the definition of "professional fund-raiser", after "institution" there shall be inserted "or a company connected with such an institution".'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
      3.48 pm
      The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
      The new clause is a response to points raised by the eighth deregulation task force, chaired by Tessa Baring, which has been examining charities and voluntary organisations. The new clause is also in line with the outcome of a consultation exercise that the Home Office carried out last year.
      As right hon. and hon. Members may be aware, the eighth task force was appointed later than the seven business task forces. Mrs. Baring and her colleagues have examined a great amount of regulation conscientiously and enthusiastically and we are most grateful for their efforts. Their report has been prepared in draft form and is being considered by the relevant Government Departments with a view to publication soon—including a Government response to their recommendations.
      As with the other task forces, a copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. Part II of the Charities Act 1992 introduces controls on professional and commercial involvement in fund raising for a charitable institution—for a charity or any other charitable, benevolent or philanthropic organisation.
      Part II applies where there is a solicitation on behalf of a charitable institution, or representation during a promotional venture, that contributions are to be given or applied for the benefit of a charitable institution. In such cases, part II requires two things: that a written agreement
      162
      with the organisation is already in existence, in accordance with prescribed requirements; and that a statement is made about the arrangements and accompanies each relevant solicitation or representation.
      Part II is not yet in force. Draft regulations were issued for consultation last July and it had been intended that the provisions would be brought into force by now. It was decided, however, that commencement should wait until the views of the eighth deregulation task force were clearer. In fact, the task force is not—as I understand it —likely to recommend any fundamental changes to part II. Indeed, there is widespread support for its provisions and a wish to see them in force. The task force is likely, however, to endorse two key views that emerged from consultation on the draft regulations: the need to clarify the position over connected companies; and the need to allow longer time between the making of final regulations and their coming into force.
      During the passage of the Charities Act 1992, the Government clearly stated that part II was not intended to regulate charities or companies connected to them—in other words, companies that are wholly owned or controlled by charities. Those who advise charities have had doubts, however, and think that the wording of part II does not achieve that intention to their satisfaction. The amendments effected by the new clause are designed to put that right.
      I am sure that the House will agree that there should be no question of significant differences of interpretation, even before the law comes into operation. With that in mind I must make it clear—as does the legislation—that a company connected to a charitable institution may nevertheless be subject to part II if it is acting in concert with an institution to which it is not connected.
      The two amendments grouped with the new clause are consequential on it and amend clauses 30 and 72, to provide that the new clause will come into force on Royal Assent and that it will extend only to England and Wales. The amendments are the only changes that the Government are proposing to the Charities Act at this stage of the Bill's passage, since the deregulation task force is still completing its report. We are examining carefully the case for further urgent amendments which it may be appropriate to table in another place. We have in mind the introduction of a new light-touch reporting regime for the smallest charities and hope to reach a conclusion on that issue shortly. Meanwhile, I urge the House, in the interests of charities, to accept this useful deregulatory measure.
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am grateful to the Minister for the introduction to new clause 12 and its purposes, and his reference to the consequential amendments. We shall certainly support new clause 12. What the Minister had to say makes a great deal of sense. They are technical issues, but they tidy up the Bill. We go along with the Government on that basis.
      We also welcome the future reference to light touch reporting for smaller charities, which makes a great deal of sense. There may be an argument about the definition of a smaller charity, but the lighter touch would save money and time in terms of red tape.
      The fact that the Opposition accept new clause 12 is typical of our approach throughout the proceedings on the Bill—if there is a sensible approach to removing regulation, of course we will support it. We shall not,

      163
      however, support those attempts to deregulate which put at risk the rights of employees and consumers. As new clause 12 does none of those things, we shall support it.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for what he said and I am sure the charity world is, too, as it will help deregulation. I am also grateful for what he said about supporting useful deregulation that does not reduce necessary protection but erases burdens. We are both of one mind as that is clearly set out as being the intention of the entire Bill. Perhaps it is a good omen for speedy progress.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      BETTING ON SUNDAYS
      ' .—(1) The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 shall be amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5) below.
      (2) In section 5(1), for "Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday" there shall be substituted "Good Friday or Christmas Day".
      (3) After section 10, there shall be inserted—
      "Rights of betting office workers as respects Sunday working. 10A. Schedule 4A to this Act (which makes provision in relation to the rights of betting office workers as respects Sunday working) shall have effect."
      (4) In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, for "Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday" there shall be substituted "Good Friday and Christmas Day".
      (5) After Schedule 4 there shall be inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 4) to this Act.'.— [Mr. Paice.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. James Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss amendment No.1—a new schedule—
      'Schedule to be inserted in the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 4

    SCHEDULE 4A

      RIGHTS OF BETTING WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING
      General interpretation
      1.—(1) In this Schedule, except where a contrary intention appears—

      'the 1978 Act' means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978,

      'betting office' means a licensed betting office within the meaning of this Act,

      'betting worker' means an employee who, under his contract of employment, is required to work in England and Wales at a track for a bookmaker or totalisator operator or in a betting office on a day on which betting transactions are effected at that track by or on behalf of that bookmaker or totalisator operator or at that betting office,

      'bookmaker' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act,

      'the commencement date' means the day on which this Schedule comes into force,

      'dismissal' has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act,

      'notice period', in relation to an opting-out notice,has the meaning given by paragraph 6 below,

      164

      'opted-out', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below, 'opting-in notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2) below,

      'opting-out notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 4(3) below,

      'protected', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 below,

      'totalisator operator' means the Totalisator Board or any other person authorised to conduct pool betting business within the meaning of this Act,

      'track' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act.

      (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
      section 151(1) and (2) (computation of period of continuous employment), and section 153 (general interpretation),
      shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that Act.
      (3) For the purposes of this Schedule, section 151(2) of the 1978 Act shall have effect with the omission of the words from 'but' onwards and Schedule 13 to that Act shall have effect with the following modifications—

      (a) in paragraph 1 for the words 'paragraphs 3 to 12' there shall be substituted 'paragraph 4 or paragraphs 9 to 12',

      (b) paragraph 3 and paragraphs 5 to 8 shall be omitted, and

      (c) in paragraph 4 the words 'which normally involves employment for sixteen hours or more weekly' shall be omitted.

      (4) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after childbirth treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed as a betting worker under her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period, she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a betting worker on the day with effect from which she is treated as dismissed under that section.
      Meaning of 'protected betting worker'
      2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'protected' if, and only if—

      (a) on the day before the commencement date, he was employed as a betting worker,

      (b) on that day, he was not employed to work only on Sunday,

      (c) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with that day and ending with the appropriate date, and

      (d) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

      (2) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above 'the appropriate date' means—

      (a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,

      (b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,

      (c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 12 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into,

      (d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work,

      (e) in relation to paragraph 14 below, any time in relation to which the contract is to be enforced. And

      (f) in relation to paragraph 15 below, the end of the period in respect of which the remuneration is paid or the benefit accrues.

      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.
      (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

      165

      (a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and

      (b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

      and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.
      (5) Where on the day before the commencement date an employee's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall be regarded as satisfying the conditions in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) above if—

      (a) that day falls in a week which counts as a period of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the I 978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy etc.) and

      (b) on the last day before the commencement date on which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, the employee was a betting worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday.

      3.—(1) A betting worker is not a protected betting worker if—

      (a) on or after the commencement date, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and

      (b) after giving that notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

      (2) In this Schedule "opting-in notice" means a written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, in which the betting worker expressly states that he wishes to work on Sunday or that he does not object to Sunday working.
      Notice of objection to Sunday working
      4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any betting worker who, under his contract of employment—

      (a) is or may be required to work on Sunday (whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice), but

      (b) is not employed to work only on Sunday.

      (2) A betting worker to whom this paragraph applies may at any time give his employer written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, to the effect that the betting worker objects to Sunday working.
      (3) In this Schedule 'opting-out notice' means a notice given under sub-paragraph (2) above by a betting worker to whom this paragraph applies.
      Meaning of 'opted-out betting worker'
      5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'opted-out' if, and only if—

      (a) he has given his employer an opting-out notice,

      (b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with the day on which the notice was given and ending with the appropriate date, and

      (c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above 'the appropriate date' means—

      (a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,

      (b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,

      (c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 13 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into, and

      (d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work.

      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling
      166
      within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.
      (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

      (a) where an act extends over a period, the 'date of the Act' means the first day of the period, and

      (b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

      and in the absence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.
      (5) A betting worker is not an opted-out betting worker if—

      (a) after giving the opting-out notice concerned, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and

      (b) after giving that opting-in notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

      Meaning of 'notice period'
      6. In this Schedule 'notice period', in relation to an opted-out betting worker, means, subject to paragraph 11(2) below, the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given.
      Right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work
      7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the dismissal of, a protected or opted-out betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.
      (3) The dismissal of a betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.
      (4) Section 142 of the 1978 Act (contracts for a fixed term) shall not exclude the application of section 54 of that Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) in relation to any dismissal which is unfair by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.—
      8.—(1) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a protected or opted-out betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

      (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

      (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(1) above,

      then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(2) above.
      (3) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

      (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

      167

      (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(3) above,

      then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
      Exclusion of section 64(1) of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
      9. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) shall not apply to such a dismissal.
      Right not to suffer detriment for refusing Sunday work
      10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a protected or opted-out betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to anything done in relation to an opted-out betting worker on the grounds that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.
      (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, a betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that he gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to his employer.
      (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.
      (5) For the purposes of this paragraph a betting worker who does not work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by

      (a) any failure to pay remuneration in respect of betting work on a Sunday which he has done.

      (b) any failure to provide him with any other benefit, where that failure results from the application, in relation to a Sunday on which the employee has not worked, of a contractual term under which the extent of that benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by the employee or the remuneration of the employee, or

      (c) any failure to provide him with any work, remuneration or other benefit which by virtue of paragraph 14 or 15 below the employer is not obliged to provide.

      (6) Where an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to any one or more employees who are protected or opted-out betting workers or who, under their contracts of employment, are not obliged to work on Sunday, if they agree to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday—

      (a) and employee to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to make the offer to him or to pay him that sum, and

      (b) an employee who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for those purposes as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay him that sum.

      Employer's duty to give explanatory statement
      11.—(1) Where a person becomes a betting worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a betting worker, give him 'a written statement in the prescribed form.
      (2)If—

      (a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any betting worker, and

      168

      (b) the betting worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out betting worker,

      paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the betting office worker, with the substitute for 'three months' of 'one month'.
      (3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the betting worker has given him an opting-out notice.
      (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

      'STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY BETTING WORK
      You have become employed as a betting worker and are or can be required under your contract of employment to do the Sunday work your contract provides for.
      However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to work on any Sunday once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.
      Your notice must—

      be in writing;

      be signed and dated by you;

      say that you object to Sunday working.

      for three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to work on Sundays, your employer—

      dismisses you, or

      does something else detrimental to you, for example, failing to promote you.

      Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to work on Sunday or that you do not object to Sunday working and then agreeing with your employer to work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday.'
      (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.
      (6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      Effect of rights on contracts of employment
      12.—(1) Any contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—

      (a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday on or after the commencement date, or

      (b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday on or after that date.

      (2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into after the commencement date between a protected betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

      (a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday, or

      (b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday.

      (3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, a protected betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) above (and so ceases to be protected), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
      (4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting

      169
      worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act (maternity).
      13.—(1) Where a betting worker gives his employer an opting-out notice, the contract of employment under which he was employed immediately before he gave that notice becomes unenforceable to the extent that it—

      (a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or

      (b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

      Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into between an opted-out betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

      (a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or

      (b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

      (3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, an opted-out betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 5(5)(b) above (and so ceases to be opted-out), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
      (4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).
      14.If—

      (a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with work for a specified number of hours each week,

      (b) under that contract, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before the commencement date, and

      (c) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so.

      then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall not be regarded as requiring the employer to provide him with work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally worked by the betting worker on weekdays before he ceased to work on Sunday.
      15.—(1) If—

      (a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before that date,

      (b) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so, and

      (c) it is not apparent from the contract what part of the remuneration payable, or of any other benefit accruing, to the betting worker was intended to be attributable to work on Sunday, then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall be regarded as enabling the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration paid, or the extent of the other benefit provided, to the betting worker in respect of any period by the proportion which the hours of work which (apart from this Schedule) the betting worker could have been required to do on Sunday in the period (in this paragraph referred
      170
      to as "the contractual Sunday hours") bears to the aggregate of those hours and the hours of work actually done by the betting worker in the period.

      (2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.
      Proceedings for contravention of paragraph 10
      16. Section 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the ground that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to paragraph 10 above.
      Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right
      17. In section 60A of the 1978 Act (dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right), in subsection (4)(a), after sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be inserted "or
      (iii) Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".

      Conciliation
      18. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation offers) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—
      "(ff) arising out of a contravention, or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".'.
      Mr. Paice: The effect of new clause 1 is to remove from the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 the ban on licensed betting offices opening to the public on Sundays. It also introduces into that Act a schedule of employee protection.
      The impact, however, of the new clause would be to allow betting offices to open on Sundays, thus enabling horse racing to take place on Sundays. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that it will also enable greyhound racing to take place. I do not pretend to know very much about greyhound racing, so I shall leave it to other hon. Members to discuss in more detail, but I understand that the industry would benefit considerably and I have received a letter from the British Greyhound Racing Board expressing its support.
      In the seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there have been three earlier attempts to allow Sunday racing to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, introduced a Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), and then my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) took over the Bill of the noble Lord Wyatt. All failed—probably inevitably, given the constraints on private Members' legislation and because other aspects of Sundays had not been resolved by the House. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my three hon. Friends for their pioneering work in raising the profile of the issue so that the industry was in a better position to address some of the problems before coming to the House tonight to try once more.
      It is also important at this stage to point out to the House that considerable discussion has taken place within the industry over the past four months since I first conceived the idea of using the deregulation Bill as a vehicle for change. For all that time the hon. Member for Livingston

      171
      (Mr. Cook) has been involved in those discussions and has been most robust in his support for the principles, and I thank him for that.
      Although I am conscious that in the past few days one or two voices in the industry have raised questions, I should make it clear that they have been involved and consulted for a considerable time before the new clause was tabled.
      Some of my hon. Friends may be concerned at what might be seen an a stimulus to further betting and gambling. I make no secret of the fact that I do not share their criticism or concern, but I respect it. To that extent, it is important to review the law at the present time.
      Although, in law, betting, gaming and lotteries are distinct forms of gambling, any survey of public opinion would find it extremely difficult to identify any difference in the public perception of them. All three are legal on Sundays, so a substantial amount of gambling already takes place.
      It is perfectly legal for people to enter a casino on a Sunday and take part in all the activities of such places. It is also possible to bet on horse racing on Sundays. Anyone sufficiently well-off to have a credit account with a bookmaker can place bets by telephone on a Sunday on horse races taking place in a different country. I shall return to that point. People can play on an amusement-with-prizes machine—I prefer to call it a one-armed bandit—yet most people consider that to be gambling.
      4 pm
      Perhaps the most important point is that when the national lottery is introduced in a few months, it will be perfectly legal to buy a ticket on a Sunday from any of the outlets. The national lottery has been approved and supported by both sides of the House, working on behalf of the Government.
      That brings me to my final point on the issue of betting, which is that the Government are not a disinterested bystander—on the contrary, the Treasury receives a substantial tax revenue from betting, gaming and lotteries. The general betting duty alone raises almost £500 million a year.
      I want to explain why I believe that there is a need to allow horse racing on Sundays. It will not have gone unnoticed that horse racing and, indeed, greyhound racing are the only major sports that do not currently take place on a Sunday. Football, cricket, golf, motor racing and horse trials all take place on Sundays and the vast majority of people recognise them as part of modern Sunday leisure activities. Therefore, horse racing is being discriminated against by being unable to compete in what is becoming an ever-more competitive leisure market.
      I make it clear that, of all the major horse racing countries, Britain is the only one where horse racing does not take place on Sundays. In Ireland, France and Italy, the three other big racing nations in Europe—incidentally, all Catholic nations—horse racing with betting takes place on Sundays. Indeed, in Ireland, which is in its third season of Sunday racing, it is already possible to draw some conclusions. By holding the Irish Derby on a Sunday, while we hold our Derby on a Wednesday, their attendances have risen substantially whereas ours have
      172
      fallen dramatically because modern life styles mean that fewer and fewer people can afford to take a day off midweek.
      Attendances in Ireland on a Sunday compare favourably with comparative Saturday fixtures. Perhaps more important, many of the racegoers on a Sunday are different from the usual racegoer. They include many more women and children and there is very much more of a family atmosphere—and that is extremely important to horse racing if it is to become even more of a mainstream sporting activity.
      Why is betting necessary in order to have horse racing on Sundays? First, anyone who goes racing knows of the significant increased attraction and enjoyment from being able to put a small bet on a horse that might take one's fancy for any one of a number of reasons. Secondly, and far more significantly, the inherent desire of the British people to gamble and to bet on horses will always find an outlet. There is justifiable concern in Customs and Excise that unless there is an opportunity for legal betting, both on and off-course, there will be a mushrooming of illegal activity, just as there was before the 1963 legislation. For that reason, it has not been possible for me to separate on and off-course betting.
      Finally, there is the matter of the horse race betting levy —the very significant contribution back into the racing industry that comes from the use of racing's product by the betting industry. There is no doubt that, with the advent of the national lottery, there will be some diversion of any money available for gambling and horse racing, so racing will lose. In Ireland, the lottery reduced betting turnover by 17 per cent. That is why I am anxious that Sunday racing should provide an alternative way of sustaining betting office turnover, which would be good both for racing and for the bookmakers.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend's point about support for the industry through betting is also a factor in the possible transfer of prize money to courses overseas. I know from representations from Sandown Park in my constituency that it is worried about that factor, which is why it supports what my hon. Friend is saying this afternoon.
      Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing the support from Sandown Park and Esher.
      Over the past two years, three experimental race meetings have been held on Sundays to show the public exactly what a Sunday meeting could be like. Obviously, no cash betting could take place, although a small amount of credit betting occurred. The absence of cash betting severely damaged the quality of the racing, although the attendance was substantial.
      What will happen if the new clause is passed? In the next two years, the British Horseracing Board will include in its fixture list a small number of Sundays. There will be no dramatic change; it is not intended that a sudden surge of Sunday meetings will take place all over the country. Britain has 59 racecourses, the vast majority of which would not be open on a Sunday. Many would never have Sunday meetings, while others would have just one or two. One has only to look at the Saturday fixture list to realise that most courses do not operate on Saturdays. And even if, in several years' time, Sunday racing becomes more

      173
      popular so that there is an overall increase in the fixture list, only a small number of Sunday meetings is likely to take place.
      My final point concerns the new schedule of employment protection. I and my colleagues on both sides of the House who have tabled the new clause looked carefully at those who would be affected by the proposals. People who work in licensed betting offices and the staff of the Tote who work on and off course will be directly affected. Many others in the racing industry would also be affected: stable lads, jockeys, trainers, and horsebox drivers will work on Sundays, as will race course staff, officials, caterers and so on. But most of those already have Sunday work in their work rota. Stable lads, trainers, race course staff, officials and caterers often work on Sundays for a number of hours, although the new clause may increase that workload. Race course officials who do not have meetings at present may be involved in other activities on race courses on Sundays, such as antiques fairs, which take place on my local course of Newmarket.
      In any event, most race courses will be closed on any one Sunday, so the only new group of employees who will be significantly affected will be the staff of betting offices and the Tote. That is why the new clause includes a new schedule of employment rights specifically for those staff.
      I am aware of the concern of the Stable Lads Association, but the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which I seek to amend, is not the correct vehicle for addressing the concerns of the stable lads and to do so would not be in order. I assure the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has just joined us, that I understand the stable lads' concerns. The British Horseracing Board will undertake to initiate discussions with employers to obtain appropriate improvements and changes to the terms and conditions that will be necessary for stable lads who will have to work longer hours and on some Sundays.
      The new schedule in amendment No.1 sets out terms of employee protection identical to those provided for retail staff in the Sunday Trading Bill, which is currently in another place. I recognise that many bookmakers may be concerned at being singled out for employee protection, but I hope that they will understand not only the fact that the House is unlikely to approve the measure without employee protection, but that, under current law, the distinct group of people that I have described would not normally expect to have to work on a Sunday.
      The Betting Office Licensees Association, which represents the large bookmakers, is also concerned that its staff should be seen as employees of the leisure industry, not the retail industry. That may well be the case; it is an extremely valid argument, but to make that change would require a substantial review of the entire legislation surrounding betting offices, and that is not the purpose of my proposals. It could be done only under the auspices of a specific Government Bill at some stage in future.
      Why should the British public be the only racing nation unable to enjoy their sport on a Sunday? To allow betting to operate would enable many more people to participate in the sport, in which Britain and—I make no bones about it —many of my constituents have been, and will continue to be, pre-eminent. I believe that new clause 1 and the new schedule that I have tabled with it are workable. I do not pretend to be infallible, but if, as I am advised, certain
      174
      aspects of the schedule on employment protection need to be technically changed, I hope that the Government will agree to do that in another place.
      I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both Front Benches have agreed to a free vote on new clause 1. That is extremely valuable and welcome. I very much hope that, on the back of that, the House will accept the new clause and give the racing public an opportunity to enjoy their sport on a Sunday.
      Sir Peter Emery: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South East (Mr. Paice) and congratulate him on the manner in which he presented his new clause and the reason with which he argued his case. Let me make it absolutely clear to him that I accept immediately that there is no reason why racing at race courses should not take place on a Sunday. It seems to me that it is a sport that many people appreciate, and there is no reason why those who are interested in it should be debarred from having race meetings on a Sunday when most other sports are able to continue. I understand also his argument that to have racing on a Sunday where there is no on-course betting makes it very difficult for the attraction, which is part of racing, to be complete. The whole of his argument on that is sincere and reasonable, and I accept it.
      The only matter on which I have to begin to present an argument is for a considerable minority in this country —those who see a specific reason for trying to keep Sunday slightly special and who would find it somewhat unpleasant and unnecessary to have betting shops open in the high streets and villages throughout the country on a Sunday. That would happen because many of them are controlled by major national combines. There would be considerable resentment about that. My hon. Friend argued that, unless there was overall permission for betting to take place, both on and off course on a Sunday, it would be impossible for racing to proceed. I question that. He argued that that could not happen because Customs and Excise believes that, if betting shops were not to open, a great deal of illegal off-course betting would arise. That argument is somewhat dubious. It does not follow with the latter part of the case he made: that there would not be a major surge of meetings on a Sunday, and therefore there would not be a massive necessity to create an external factor in which betting can take place.
      My hon. Friend admitted that many people—I believe that it is not just the rich, but many hundreds of thousands of people—have betting accounts. Many ladies in my constituency have betting accounts, watch the television and are delighted to place their small amount of money by telephone to the bookies. I see no reason why that should be banned. On the levy, it would not take much imagination on the part of the betting shops to prepare their betting slips to allow them to be used for a Sunday race as well for Saturday races so that those who wanted to bet on the Sunday schedule could quite easily do so on a Saturday without the shop having to open on a Sunday. They could collect their winnings on Monday.
      4.15 pm
      I believe that it is the Home Office that has objected to the licensing of on-course betting, refusing to accept that it can be separated from off-course betting. I hope that, before they accept the new clause, the Government will give an undertaking to reconsider the matter and establish

      175
      whether it is possible to agree to the licensing of on-course betting and betting on account—which can take place anywhere—without necessarily allowing betting shops in every village in the country to open on Sunday. That would benefit those who want to enjoy Sunday racing and to bet on course, while not incurring the objections of a number of people—a minority, admittedly, but one of the largest minorities in the country: a Christian minority. Balancing those two interests would be greatly advantageous to the Government, while allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East to achieve his aims without hindering the racing community.
      I do not accept the argument of some outside organisations that unless there is off-course betting the industry will be unable to adopt Sunday racing. As my hon. Friend explained, there will be no sudden surge: if courses are allowed to provide on-course betting on Sundays, we shall achieve the objective that both he and I want. As I said, I support him at least in part.
      I hope that the Government—including the Home Office—will examine the matter again. I see no reason for rejecting the new clause. After all, if the illegal off-course betting industry increases, the Government can increase the penalties to deter people. I believe that we can accommodate both sides of the question sensibly and reasonably.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I must declare an interest, as treasurer of the all-party group on racing and Woodstock. I have supported Sunday racing for many years; I have never been able to see the logic of allowing other sports to take place on Sundays while racing cannot. I have also been a strong supporter of on-course betting only, and—like the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—I do not understand why the Home Office could not see the sense of such an arrangement. However, following extensive debate in the all-party group, I am aware that unless we take this opportunity to allow Sunday racing, we shall remain in a ridiculous position for many years. I therefore have to tell the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Mr. Paice) that I shall support the amendment—much to his surprise, I think—but I want the protection of workers' rights and of the additional payment for those who work on Sundays to be included in the Bill. If that protection is included, the hon. Gentleman shall have my strong support, although I also wish that there were racing with on-course betting only.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for not being here when he moved the new clause, but the debate on the earlier new clause and amendments was so rapid that I could not get here quickly enough. However, I arrived just in time to hear him express some very helpful sentiments in connection with stable lads in particular. I shall detain the House for a few moments to highlight the new clause's implications for stable lads. It is not my hon. Friend's fault, but stable lads are perforce excluded from the employment protection measures proposed in amendment No. 1 to benefit those who work in betting shops.
      There is no automatic employment protection for the 8,000 to 10,000 people employed in the racing industry, for either the 6,000 or so who work in the various types of stables or the 3,000 or so employed as breeders and transport staff. Mr. W. A. J. Adams, the national secretary
      176
      of the Stable Lads Association, has outlined a vivid scenario of what will happen to staff at a typical stable, who do not at present work have to do much work on a Sunday, if there is regular Sunday racing on a large scale.
      Mr. Adams cites the example of a stable yard with 40 horses which is adequately staffed with a ratio of one lad to three horses. Let us assume that on alternate weekends only six or seven members of staff are on duty at the yard to look after the 40 horses. As a result of the new clause, two Sunday races could be scheduled suddenly—one at Ayr and one at Newbury. If the trainer or owner has engaged one horse to run at Ayr, the distance between Ayr and the yard will mean that two of the seven rostered weekend staff will have to travel on Saturday to get to Ayr on time, leaving a depleted weekend contingent of five to work on Saturday evening.
      If the owner is exerting pressure to have a runner at Newbury as well as Ayr, another two members of the weekend staff will have to leave first thing on Sunday morning, thus leaving a weekend contingent of three at the yard to look after the remaining 38 horses. It will almost certainly lead to the trainer ordering staff who are rostered off duty to cover for staff away at the races. Therefore, staff will lose the valuable time off that they usually expect to have at the weekend. Of course, the yard may also have horses running on Monday, in which case they would need exercising on Sunday and the staff may have to leave for the races on Sunday afternoon, thus depleting the Sunday care and maintenance staff even further.
      Such a scenario would have a profound effect on the life and lot of stable lads. Their life and lot is not one of exotic, plutocratic wealth or high standards of living. They are, in fact, a vulnerable and low-paid sector of the work force. They typically work one weekend in two, with five hours' overtime. In 1991, a lad aged 19 received £144 a week as a minimum consolidated wage. The idea that, because of the extra pressure caused by Sunday working, the key staff will be increased—or that numbers will be "staffed up", as the saying goes in the trade—is a myth. The key staff on which the training of racehorses depends are usually over 25 years of age, married and very difficult to replace. There is already a drop-out from the industry of those aged 23 years and over, with the anti-social hours and low pay creating difficulties for married couples. A move towards Sunday racing without protection from being forced to work on Sundays will inevitably increase that trend.
      In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East has said already and in view of my own brief contribution to the debate, I hope that he will see that it is constructive, helpful and wise to do everything possible to ensure that stable lads and those connected with training stables will not be affected adversely. Life in training stables will have to change in order to put stable lads on reasonably even terms with those who are employed in betting shops for whom my hon. Friend is trying to get a better deal.
      I believe that it is in the interests of the horse racing industry to offer a new deal to stable lads and those associated with them in the context of what my hon. Friend is trying to do in his amendment. If my hon. Friend will confirm that he will put all his moral and mental force behind improving the lot of stable hands in the face of many extra Sunday racing events, I will take everything that he said at face value and give him my full support and credit for what he is trying to do. But my support for his

      177
      amendment is conditional on the fact that he will go to town and secure at least as good a deal for stable lads as he is trying to secure for those who work in betting shops.
      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I intend to speak very briefly to the new clause as I suspect that the vast majority of hon. Members have already made up their minds about this issue. Nevertheless, it is important for me to put on record the reasons why I shall be voting against the new clause.
      This debate is a conjunction of two very serious debates which have taken place in the Chamber in recent times —on the National Lottery Bill, when we explored the ethics of gambling, and the Sunday Trading Act 1993. Those debates caused great consternation on both sides of the House.
      I was bemused to hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) make some kind of causal link between catholicity and an enthusiasm for gambling. I thought that that was very odd. As a Catholic, I am virulently opposed to gambling—but on a pragmatic basis. My opposition is not a matter of religious conviction; I oppose gambling simply because 1: look around and I see brothers, relatives and friends for whom gambling is an addictive disease. I have learnt that lesson over many years and it is one of the reasons why I shall be opposing the new clause tonight. I do not take any high moral ground; I oppose it simply on the basis of my own experience.
      I view with some amusement the notion that the bookies will somehow end up in the poorhouse if we do not open the betting shops on Sundays. In my part of the world we used to say that there was no such thing as a thin bookie. Perhaps I would fit the part myself if I were that way inclined.
      I have three simple reasons for opposing the new clause. First, I have little time for horse racing. I think that it is controlled by members of a certain class with a certain level of wealth who run it as a private club. I have no truck with it, although many members of my family, my party and my constituents would take great exception to that point. But that is my view and I hold by it.
      If I have little time for the horse racing industry, I do not give a tinker's damn about bookmakers and the money that they fleece from people throughout the country in one way or another. I will give no succour to bookmakers at any point. So far as I am concerned, to encourage gambling at any level is another nail in the coffin of society as we know it. In my view, gambling is a sickness which ought to be treated and not encouraged.
      My second reason for voting against the new clause is that it will do further damage to families with a gambling problem. I am no moral arbiter for families in my constituency or anywhere else, but I know what will happen to many people I have seen for whom the only respite at present is a Sunday, because during the week the man of the house—or, increasingly, the woman of the house—spends all day in the betting shop. We all know that that happens.
      The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East talked about turning betting shops into leisure centres.
      Mr. Paice indicated dissent.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: Or perhaps he said that betting shops should be regarded as part of the leisure industry—I think that he would accept that—but betting shops are really nothing but money-grinding machines for the bookies.
      Thirdly, I oppose the new clause because I do not believe that the interests of the employees of the thousands of betting shops throughout the country will be protected. I am not convinced by the protestations of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East about the new schedule that he said would be added to protect employees' interests. Such measures have not worked before, and they will not work now. When the pressure is on, people who work part time in betting shops will face a clear choice: work on Sundays or be out of a job.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on his sterling work, and on the weight that he, as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock committee, has borne on his shoulders in introducing the new clause and in promoting the interests of horse racing. My hon. Friend and I share an interest in horse racing. Although we represent different ends of the country, both our constituencies are important breeding and horse race training centres of excellence. I am in no doubt that the future of our horse racing industry will be enhanced by Sunday racing. That, above all else, is why I support it, and therefore why I support the new clause.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why we require off-course as well as on-course betting. The Home Affairs Select Committee considered that question in detail when we inquired into the levy and the tote. In our report we recommended Sunday racing, but with on-course betting only. We cast our concerns on the strength of the argument about whether, if betting shops were closed, there would be illegal gambling. That was not the experience in Ireland. Three years later, however, having thought a great deal more about the subject, I believe that we need off-course as well as on-course betting. I will give my right hon. Friend two reasons why.
      First, restricting betting to the course is fine for people who go to the race course, but if there were a meeting in Newbury, people who live in North Yorkshire and are involved in the racing industry there would not be able to go to Newbury, bet on the race, watch it as a live spectacle and collect their winnings, or whatever. In horse racing —and betting is a crucial part of the sport—we should have a national picture; everyone should be able to join in. If we closed the betting shops it would not be the wealthy who would lose, but the ordinary working man. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was concerned about that. The ordinary working man, who has not got a telephone account with Ladbroke's or Coral's —in my opinion, for the reasons described by the hon. Member for Walton, perhaps he ought not to have one—would lose.
      The second reason for having off-course betting is one that I mentioned earlier. I believe that over time it would boost the viability and prosperity of horse racing. That is what we all want to see. The crucial ingredient in that process is the levy, which comes from off-course rather than on-course betting. If one considers the Grand National, for example, the loss of that one race last year

      179
      meant that the levy was the poorer by some £750,000. We want some of the classic races which at present are raced on a Tuesday, a Wednesday or perhaps a Thursday with not only low attendances but relatively low turnover in the betting shop, to take place at the weekend. There are enough of them on Saturdays. The Saturday fixtures are full. We want some of them raced on a Sunday. We shall then see a bigger betting turnover and a bigger levy as a consequence. That does not in any way mean that there will be more racing.
      Mr. Michael Jopling: You have blown it.
      Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) says that we have blown it, but there is undoubtedly an opportunity for more people to take part in racing in their leisure time at the weekend—on Saturday and Sunday—than when they are on the factory floor or in the office from Monday to Friday.
      Sir Peter Emery: To help clarify his argument, would my hon. Friend mind telling me how many classic races on the flat are held on a Saturday and if they are not, why they are not?
      Mr. Greenway: A number of classics are raced on a Saturday—such as the St. Leger, which is raced over a mile and a half. The 2000 Guineas is raced on a Saturday. The Derby is raced on a Wednesday and the off-course betting turnover is much lower than, say, that of the Grand National. I believe that there would be a higher turnover if it were raced on a Sunday.
      The next question to ask is how many races.
      Mr. Michael Lord: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. Earlier, we were told that there was no intention of over-stimulating weekend racing, that we would barely notice the difference for quite a few years and that it would all be very gentle. I suspect that my hon. Friend is letting the cat quietly out of the bag. He is saying that he wants the classics to be raced not just at the weekend, but specifically on a Sunday when a lot of people have more free time to get involved. However, that is also the precious free time that many Conservative Members want to preserve.
      Mr. Greenway: That is up to my hon. Friend. If he wants to sit at home with his feet up in front of the fire on a Sunday afternoon, that is entirely up to him. He may choose to watch the racing or the football or to watch the repeat of "Coronation Street". Many working people are denied the choice of going to some of the classic races because they are raced on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There is a three-day, mid-week meeting at York, and the Oaks trial has been run this afternoon in the past couple of hours. How many people who support racing can go to York races on a Tuesday afternoon?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) anticipated the point to which I was coming. We are not talking about racing every Sunday—certainly not for the foreseeable future. We are not even talking necessarily about any extra race meetings. We are talking about some
      180
      race meetings which are currently held mid-week, including some of the classic races, being raced on a Sunday instead. All that we would be doing—
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Greenway: I have already given way three times in what I had hoped would be a fairly short speech. All that we want to do is to improve the finances of racing. The Treasury recognised the importance of that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor certainly recognised that by reducing betting duty to stimulate the amount of money which could go back into racing, which is extremely important.
      When every other major international and national sport takes place on a Sunday, we cannot expect to maintain a viable, long-term racing industry if one of the two main leisure days is denied to that industry by not having racing on Sunday. This is a unique opportunity for the House to put right a wrong that has existed for far too long. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East.
      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, I declare my interest in the issue. I am vice-chairman of the leisure and recreation industry group. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) rightly and sincerely made some valid points about the way in which addiction to gambling can come from licensed betting shops. The all-party racing and bloodstock committee would, of course, condemn any growth in such addiction.
      In the past 10 years, social trends have changed rapidly. There are 10 million households in which the man and wife both work, and one or both may work on Saturdays or Sundays. A problem arises in relation to leisure. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that when, as chairman of the all-party group, I address conferences such as the clubs' annual conference, I make it clear that there is no such thing as a benevolent brotherhood of bookmakers, bankers and brewers, although they are all obviously interested in the leisure and racing industries.
      Leisure has become an integral part of racing. Racing is a real and large industry, which is dependent on the leisure industry. Only last week, Haydock Park had model exhibitions, fairs and May day celebrations—non-political in content—to supplement the income from racing. Increasingly, there is dual usage, with football pitches or even rugby pitches in the centre of race courses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about fishing?] Fishing or anything else will do. It is all part and parcel of our social network. It is imperative that there is support for the increase in activity that is envisaged over the next 10 or 15 years.
      There is now freedom from the Sunday trading laws, despite the Lord's day observance societies and religious convictions. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, who has the same religion as I do, that I go to mass on Saturday evening. Saturday is no longer the permanent shopping day and it will change further as the years go on. I have the right to follow my religious practice on Sunday morning, Sunday evening or Saturday night. My hon. Friend has the same right and I know that he uses it. That is a commendation in every sense of the word.
      The present position discriminates against racing. Let us consider sports ranging from motor racing to model aeroplane flying, cricket or tennis. There is betting on

      181
      rugby in my part of the world every Sunday. The odds are set out on coupons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows something about coupons because he has pools offices in his constituency. The pools are a mild form of gambling—a friendly flutter.
      Why does the punter bet? Why does he go into a betting shop? He is not there to drink diet coke or to play the machines that everyone is arguing about. The ordinary, average racing punter believes that he has expertise. He believes that if he studies the form, makes his assessment and reads all the papers, he will beat the bookmaker. That is entirely his business. If one goes into Stratton Ground market any morning, one sees the dear ladies nipping in to put a bob or two not only on horse racing, but on greyhound racing, which ought to be covered by the Bill. That is all part and parcel of a trend in leisure. It is not a question of addiction; professional gamblers are different from the ordinary punter. We should be aware of the changing times.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) said that the pools were a form of gambling and I noticed that some Conservative Members seemed to agree. Those of us who were members of the Committee which considered the National Lottery etc. Bill were told that the pools were a game of skill rather than gambling. I ask my hon. Friend to make a distinction. There is what happens on a course, including getting the maximum use from it and financing it. I understand the problem; as my hon. Friend pointed out, it applies to many different activities. That is different from the bookies crying out in the sticks because they will make an absolute fortune through the betting shops opening on Sunday. Sunday opening will increase the amount of gambling and will not shift gambling from mid-week.
      Mr. Cunliffe: I have no scruples about the point made by my hon. Friend. I would tax the bookies' income further and further. For years and years, they have not made a substantial enough contribution to the industry through the levy. I would back my hon. Friend tooth and nail in saying that the bookies should make a greater contribution. If their income increases, they must pay more and at a higher rate. The matter will have to be looked at and I hope that the new horse racing board, the relevant Ministers—the matter may require the Home Secretary's decision—and all those involved will take note of our point. I accept that there is a difference between those who have a flutter and the professional punter.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Dennis Turner: To take up my hon. Friend's point about greyhound racmg, my understanding is that the new clause would embrace greyhound racing on Sunday. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are talking not just about horse racing, but about greyhound racing?
      Mr. Cunliffe: I am talking about what is encompassed in the Bill. Because I was away last week at the Council of Europe, I have not had time to study the Bill in detail, but I accept that it would be wrong to discriminate between the greyhound racing industry and the horse racing industry. We swould give the Minister 100 per cent. support if he were receptive to the suggestion that greyhound racing should be included.
      Mr. Paice: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to greyhounds. I have a letter here from the British Greyhound Racing Board which says:
      "greyhound racing would like to be treated in precisely a similar manner as horse racing. We are pleased to see that new Clause I as drafted would indeed have that effect."
      I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Cunliffe: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that later.
      Mr. Lord rose—
      Mr. Cunliffe: As a good Christian, I shall give way.
      Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman talked about social trends and the way in which we had to go with the tide. Does he not acknowledge that the House has some part to play in the way in which the tide flows? Does he also take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that some of us have great difficulty with this matter? There is the question of allowing racing, and all that happens at the course, and there is the impact of betting shops being open on Sundays in all the towns and villages in the country. That is the difficulty for us.
      Mr. Cunliffe: I understand the difficulty. As with the national lottery, it is not possible to forecast precisely the trends about which the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central and the right hon. Member for Honiton are concerned. Our friends the bookies are crying their eyes out because they claim that the national lottery will take 10 per cent. of their income. That is absolute nonsense. The bookies can do all the market research in the world. The punter—the professional boy—will be there and the amateur punter will be there anyhow. It will be his wife who will put a couple of quid on the lottery. The bookmakers bellyache all the time. Everyone knows that no one can accurately forecast the effect of the national lottery, and no one should have the effrontery to say what the effect on income and social trends of Sunday racing will be.
      I welcome the initiative by the all-party racing and bloodstock group. I—and my forefathers before me—condemned the exclusive Jockey Club. No one could remove the veil over its decision-making. We had no input and the Jockey Club did not like intrusions. That has gone. Thank goodness for the initiative that has come from the new board and especially from Lord Hartington. That initiative has been complimented by the whole industry.
      We now have an established horse racing board which can balance all the elements of the industry; it has balanced the elements correctly on this occasion. Whether it means the bookies paying more or somebody else paying less, the board is opening new doors to bring democracy and, for the first time, accountability to the job. That was unheard of in the past, but that is what we are doing today. All those people with worries, fears and anxieties are not necessarily wrong. I would not say that; it would be too presumptuous. There is a concern. It is up to us to manage it correctly and to demand accountability where it is required.
      Mr. Jopling: I shall begin by declaring two interests: first, there is a minute number of shares in a northern race course which have my name on them, although I have no beneficial interest whatever from them; and, secondly, I have the honour of being president of the Auto Cycle Union, which is the governing body of all motor cycle sport in this country.

      183
      Having said that, I shall explain to the House why I think that the new clause is wrong. As I am president of the Auto Cycle Union, I have no objection whatever to horse racing—we can have as many horse races as we like on Sunday. But listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) saying that he did not think that there would be many race meetings on Sunday, and then listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that he wanted to see the 1,000 and 2,000 Guineas and perhaps the Oaks, the Derby and the Cheltenham gold cup run on Sunday, there seemed to be a slight inconsistency.
      All that I can say is that my instinct is that if we have horse racing on Sunday, many race courses will wish to have meetings when they can attract big groups and where there will be a lot of public interest on television and in other ways. I suppose that many important races will gravitate to Sundays. I do not mind that in the least. However, we are not really talking about horse racing or greyhound racing specifically in the new clause; we are talking about betting on Sunday and we should confine ourselves to that.
      I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said. We are extremely close friends, but I did not know that he had similar views to mine on this particular matter. Over many years—I have been in the House for almost 30 years—when I have received letters from my constituents urging me to keep Sunday special, I suppose that I have irritated a great many of them by saying that in general people should be allowed to do what they want on Sunday. However, I have always said that there are certain aspects of Sunday which should not be changed. I can think of no single thing that would make Sunday more like any other day than to introduce betting on Sunday.
      I have always specifically said to my constituents that I would oppose betting on Sunday. Over the years, I have watched as a greater amount of gambling has crept into our way of living. We now have casinos—I was never especially happy about that. We have the lottery—I have never been a huge enthusiast for that. However, I have not got up in the House and opposed them. But when it comes to this final measure to extend gambling in this country to Sundays, I am opposed to it.
      I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said about gambling and the extent to which it is a disease. I am sure that all hon. Members know families and individuals who have ruined their lives because of gambling. Therefore, we need to draw the line somewhere, and my line is drawn at this point. I hope that the House will follow my view that we have enough gambling already—and let us have no more of it.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that just as Members of Parliament should not simply follow tides, look at social trends and move along with those trends, it is also our duty to see the direction in which those trends are taking us and to ask whether the social effects are adverse or positive.
      Although I must confess that I have been torn in different directions on the new clause, the decisive element for me is that which has been highlighted by the right hon.
      184
      Gentleman—that this is effectively a betting on Sunday clause. I confess that I know little about horse racing. I have been to only one race in my life and that was with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at a by-election. He did his best to explain horse racing to me, but I am afraid that he failed miserably.
      I look at the Bill in the light of my views on Sunday. I was a patron of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Much of the destruction of the pillars of Sunday will have adverse social effects. The enhancement of betting will change Sunday not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—that it is addictive—but because it will alter the character of Sunday.
      When we waged the Keep Sunday Special campaign, one of the exceptions was leisure and sport. If one simply had the prospect of horses racing along a track, which is a fine country pursuit, no one could possibly take any great exception to that. However, what is at issue is not horse racing as such; rather, it is the industry behind it. We must look at the interests that are mobilised in favour of the Bill. They are not interests with which I would necessarily like to be linked.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) described the interests as those of the betting and racing industries. Those are large groups, which will have a substantial effect on Sunday. My hon. Friend said that it would be absurd simply to have on-course betting—his analogy was that, if there is a meeting in Newbury, his constituents in North Yorkshire should not be denied the opportunity of betting on that meeting. However, they will have an opportunity of betting six days of the week if they so want.
      If horse racing is the motive, let the horse race take place. Why should the betting industry, which will be mobilised to support that, disturb and have an effect on and implications for each town throughout the country? Those are the interests that hide behind the new clause. They may say that it is like the nursemaid saying, "Madam, it is only a little baby at the moment." There will always be a slide, and continual creeping.
      When the debate began, I confess that I did not realise that it related not only to horse racing but to greyhound racing as well. I concede that there is a certain logic in that —there is no easy way to differentiate between them. But this goes on and on and all the old landmarks which give Sunday some value will be eradicated and we shall worship mammon again in a massive way, simply by bowing to those who say that it suits their financial interests. That is wrong and I shall vote against the new clause because of the gambling implication.
      In addition, I note the rather naive plea by the sponsors of the Bill for adequate employee protection. They say that they have lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill exactly the same fine protections as are available to those who work in supermarkets on Sunday. If the protections in the Sunday Trading Bill are adequate, anyone who practises law—I am a sort of lapsed lawyer; once upon a time I did some employment law—knows how inadequate are the remedies available to employees in industrial tribunals, as well as the fact that there is no reinstatement, that the onus of proof is on them, and the other catalogue of disadvantages which we discussed at great length on the Sunday Trading Bill. Some of my colleagues are naive if they think that those whom we are trying to protect should be prepared to

      185
      accept, as though it were a great triumph, exactly the same package of protection which—those colleagues claim—was so adequate in the Sunday Trading Bill.
      The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) mentioned the inadequacy of the provisions that have been lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill, but there is an enormous swathe of people—stable lads and others—who will have their working lives mightily affected by the Bill. However, they will in no way be brought within the protection—however inadequate—which is contained in the new clause.
      On two grounds—the massive encouragement that will be given to the powerful interests of the gambling industry and the inadequate employment protection—I will certainly be ready to vote against the new clause.
      Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has effectively sponsored the amendment and has played such an important part in the fortunes of the racing industry. He and I have the privilege of sharing the town and surrounding area of Nevvmarket —the racing capital of the world—in our constituencies.
      I shall speak on one or two things and, first, employment. There has been a severe recession in the racing industry which we are now coming out of. About 30,000 people are employed directly in horse racing, and if we take all the ancillary services, we are talking about a total of some 100,000 people. As an employer, and as a potential employer, the potential change is very important.
      Patterns of leisure have changed and every leisure industry needs the opportunity to adjust to that change. That has happened with other industries. Betting and racing are inextricably bound up. It is simply madness that one can go gambling legally in this country in a casino on a Sunday. Another absurd anomaly is that somebody can bet, using a form of credit, on a race meeting in another part of the world. These are things which make the present law look utterly foolish.
      5 pm
      Only off-course betting is subject to a levy which is used to finance racing. Without that off-course betting, Sunday racing's viability is weakened. The increase in betting turnover and levy payments will certainly help racing's finances. There are important spillover effects of the change. Prize money is still too low in this country and, of course, some of the levied funds are used for research into equines to fight disease and improve health. Comprehensive research will be helped by the increase in moneys going into the industry.
      It is vital that we maintain the reputation of the British bloodstock industry as the finest in the world from the points of view of health, research and everything else. The British Sunday has changed, and it is now a leisure day. The amendment effectively recognises that and brings the racing industry into a competitive position with other leisure industries. It is good for racing's revenues, good for employment and, yes, it is even good for the Treasury.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not believe that the argument has been made for Sunday racing on the grounds of producing another area of leisure activity for the majority of people in this country. I do not believe that the majority of people fail to attend race tracks because the meetings are held in the middle of the week. I believe that they fail to attend because they cannot afford
      186
      the fare to the racecourse, the entrance fee, car parking charges or what seem to be astronomically high charges for refreshments.
      The essential part which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) clarified was that the amendment is attempting to support the bloodstock and racing industry via the betting shop. I oppose the idea of off-track betting on Sunday, for two essential reasons. Of the 40,000 to 50,000 people employed in that industry, most are women. I cannot believe that they will find it easy to facilitate their duties as women within the home if they have to work on Sundays, as well as the six other days of the week.
      I regret that I do not believe that the supposed work protection in the Sunday Trading Bill is any kind of protection at all. Evidence has been furnished by a cashier who worked for William Hill that, when evening racing came into being, employees were expected to work infinitely longer hours. If they did not accept those longer hours, they were instantly dismissed. Managers were expected to work from 10 am until 10 pm without any break, and certainly without any increase in remuneration. I do not believe that that position will be altered dramatically for the majority of women who work in betting shops.
      We are hearing the paradoxical argument more and more in the House that, while everyone must have choices, we preclude increasing numbers of our citizens by forcing them to work on Sunday. Their choice seems to be totally and utterly negated.
      I make my second point on behalf of my constituents. The majority of high street betting shops—certainly in my constituency—are located very close to where people live. They are underneath blocks of flats, and are in streets close to terraced houses. I would not wish to paint a picture of the British punter as incapable of placing a bet without a can of alcoholic liquid in his or her hand. The majority of people who like to have a little flutter by no means behave in that way. However, I have noticed an increasing tendency for people who become increasingly inebriated during the day to find their favourite spot outside the betting shop, be it on the pavement, on the doorstep next door or leaning on the wall of the betting shop. It seems particularly hard that my constituents will suffer that nuisance and harassment every day of the week if the amendment goes through.
      I strongly endorse the arguments which have been made on both sides of the House that there is something special about Sunday. Even though legislation has been passed which seems to have essentially destroyed that special nature of Sunday, we should reject the amendment.
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: It should be said that the horse racing industry is undoubtedly part of the leisure industry. Cinemas are open on Sunday, people go to motor racing on Sunday and thousands of people go to football matches on Sunday. There have been cricket matches on Sunday for as far back as I can remember, and there are golf matches on Sunday. Nobody objects to that at all. I wonder why an exception is made for horse racing.
      If there is horse racing on Sunday, it could be in many cases a good family outing. Where I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is that I would get no pleasure at all if I went to a horse race meeting and did not have a bet or a little flutter. That is part of the fun. [Interruption.] The hon.

      187
      Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is laughing because he knows all too well that I am known as the bookie's friend.
      I must also declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. I sometimes wonder whether I was appointed to that post because I had given them so much money. My father always used to criticise me for betting, but I inherited it from him. From when I was a child, I remember my father putting bets on. In those days, there were no betting shops and he had to take his bet to a bookie's runner, who then took it to somebody else. If the runner was caught in the process, he was put in court and fined. One reason why the law was changed in the 1960s was to stop all that.
      My father always said that getting one winner was hard enough. I do things like yankees—where one picks four horses—heinz, canadians and super bets.
      Mr. Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend win?
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: No, I do not. That is the whole point.
      In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I do not bet with the mortgage or housekeeping money. For my sins, many years ago I smoked, but I have stopped smoking. I suppose that I now spend on gambling the money that I used to spend on cigarettes. Perhaps the money goes to a better cause—to the bookies rather than to the tobacco manufacturers. [Interruption.] My money does go up in smoke.
      I do multi-bets because, during an Ascot season in the 1960s, a man put on a half-crown yankee—that shows how long ago it was—at the betting shop I went to, and he won over £1,000. The following day, the betting shop put the bet on its notice board and said, "How's this for luck?" Ever since the 1960s it has been my dream that one day my betting slip would be held up in a betting shop and someone would say, "How's this for luck?" It has not happened yet, but I live in hope.
      If no betting is allowed at the courses, there will be illegal betting. That is the very thing that we tried to stamp out all those years ago. If people want to bet, they will find a way to do so.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman make a distinction between betting on course and opening betting shops all round the country? We have heard the arguments about the levy and the way in which the money filters through, but the hon. Gentleman knows, as I know, that the money would go to the bookies first and foremost. Why cannot a distinction be made between the course where the meeting is being held and bookies the length and breadth of the country?
      Sir Fergus Montgomery: That point was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). He said that if a race meeting was held on a Sunday in the south it would be difficult for someone from the north to go to the course. At least if the betting shops are open, someone who takes an interest in horse racing can have a flutter.
      I point out to the hon. Gentleman that not all bookmakers are rich. A long time ago, my father started out as a bookmaker. The result went wrong in the
      188
      Manchester handicap. The horse that he wanted to win lost by a short head. So from being prosperous when I was a child, my family was no longer prosperous and my father had to go back to the factory and eke out a living there. Bookmakers take a risk. If the favourites come in regularly, the bookmakers do not have a good day. The bookies like the outsiders to win. That is why they like me to win. I back outsiders. Perhaps that is because I am a Conservative.
      The horse racing industry is part of the leisure industry and we cannot continue to treat it differently to the rest of the leisure industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East on moving the new clause and I hope that the House will approve it.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) told us of his great desire that some day he might see his winning bet up in a shop. He should take into consideration all the money that he will have lost from the day he started to bet until the day he has his bet put up in a shop. There is no doubt that, with more outlets for gambling, this nation is suffering loss among many of its people. I serve a working-class congregation. I have served for 48 years among the teeming thousands of east Belfast. I know the heartache and the heartbreak that has come to decent working-class homes as a result of gambling and betting. As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, the new clause is about betting.
      The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) told us about the bellyaching of the bookies. We are here discussing the matter because of the bellyaching of the bookies. The influence of big gambling linked to horse racing is pushing the matter to the fore in the House of Commons. If that big gambling interest did not exist, the bellyaching of the bookies would not be listened to. I have many bookies in my constituency. They are always bellyaching and telling me, "You know, we are not making money." One has only to look at their homes and the type of life that they live to give the lie to what they are bellyaching about. Their main desire is more money and more money, no matter what way they get it.
      The House cannot have it both ways. We have been told by some today that everyone should have a free choice. I believe in that. I believe that on Sundays people should do what they want to do. They stand before their maker. For myself, I believe that I have to keep the Sabbath day holy. That is my religious conviction and I practise it, but I cannot say to any other man that he must keep Sunday as I do. He will answer to the great God on the day of judgment.
      People talk about choice, but they do not give any choice to the people who will be employed so that they can have their sport, their pleasure and their leisure activity. They do not care about taking a husband from his family, a mother from her family, a son from his family, or a daughter from her family on Sunday and making those people work to give them pleasure. What I ask for myself, I am prepared to give to everyone else. I say that employees should have a choice. Let no one believe that the bellyaching bookies will give better positions, a better rate of pay and better working conditions to the people they employ. They will employ those people at the same miserable rates at which they employ them now. Let us be clear about that.

      189
      5.15 pm
      We have heard it said today that the legislation on Sunday opening will safeguard employees. I have received complaint after complaint already from many of my constituents that they are told, "It is best for you not to object to working on Sunday." One firm in my city is offering a 50 per cent. discount on any article that employees want to buy if they will work on Sundays. If they object to working on Sundays, they will not have that discount. Let us not think in the House today that the safeguards in the Sunday trading legislation will protect the people who work on the racecourses, in the stables and in the betting shops. Have they been asked? Some hon. Members who have spoken today give the impression that they can speak with authority on behalf of those people. Surely they should be asked what they want and desire on Sundays.
      I find that the best thing for a family on Sunday is to be all together and to have a time when they can talk over the matters that tie the family together. If it is their will to go to the house of God on Sunday, I would say that that is what they should be doing, but I have only the power of persuasion. We can only persuade people to do it. That is the only power we have. If people do not do it, it is their loss. It is a sad loss because it takes away the cement of the family. Anything that takes away the cement of the family today and pulls down the bricks of the family is dangerous today for many of the bricks are already falling out and much of the cement has been taken away. Therefore, tonight my colleagues and I will vote against the new clause.
      Rev. William McCrea: Many things are vital to the well-being of our nation. However, ii: would stretch the imagination very far to suggest that the social fabric of our society would be threatened if the House rejected new clause 1. Unfortunately, one must admit that much of the moral fabric of our society and nation is under attack and has been under attack by legislation passed both in Europe and in the House. It is no wonder that our nation is in many ways going down the drain. Surely it is time that we drew a line. Surely the House has a right to give a lead to the nation.
      Many people recognise the growth of betting addiction. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke of his father's warning about the bets that he was placing. His father had not set a proper example. As a pastor, I find this rather interesting, as I know that multitudes of fathers—even Members of the House—have learnt from their own behaviour and have warned their families not to make the same mistake. Surely that is what a father ought to do. The suggestion that a person should not to warn his son of such dangers is rather strange. Many a person who has ended up as a drunkard on the street would be happy to warn his son not to take the same route. People with love in their hearts will warn their offspring of the dangers.
      I am amazed by hon. Members' use of the word "flutter" to describe betting. It makes the activity sound very innocent, whereas the reality is that in many homes the money that should be spent on bread and clothes flutters away, and the children are left to pay the very sad price. The suggestion that gambling is an innocent activity about which one need not be concerned is far from the reality to be found in housing estates and towns in our constituencies.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman know that many unemployed people are wickedly exploited by the betting industry? I refer in particular to caterers who bus in, over great distances, unemployed people who have no hope of other employment. For example, people are brought from areas of relatively high unemployment, like Newport, and are paid disgracefully low wages. Virtually all those workers are women. Surely it is right to oppose this new clause, which would do something about the vultures involved in catering for the racing industry, who exploit the misery of the unemployed.
      Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree. There are indeed vultures ready to take advantage of people in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. It is amazing that some hon. Members who ought to know better are not raising their voices in defence of these people.
      We have heard it said that, if betting were leading to addiction, the industry would condemn it. That sounds very pious and fine. However, pious words of condemnation and expressions of sorrow will not remove the grief of families caught in the trap of their loved ones' addiction. The price of addiction is paid by the family. It is all very well for a Member of Parliament, with his salary, to say that he is waiting for his name to come up on the list of winners. Many of the people about whom we are talking cannot afford the addiction in which they are caught. Nor can their families.
      This legislation is intended to benefit one group of people—the bookmakers. In my constituency there are certainly no poor bookmakers. However, I know hundreds of very poor families whose fathers and sons have been enticed into this activity.
      I should like, finally, to refer to protection for the rights of workers involved in Sunday betting duties. As for hon. Members who say that they champion workers' rights, how can it be that, in the case of Sunday trading, the paramount desire was to enable shops to open? Anyone who suggests that this Bill or the legislation on Sunday trading—
      Mr. Cunliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman declare how he voted on the social contract?
      Rev. William McCrea: I am talking about Sunday trading. I apologise to no one for consistently supporting legislation that defends the rights of workers. Unfortunately, members of the hon. Gentleman's party who said that they were for the workers were happy to go into the Lobby to ensure that there was no real protection for those very people. That is despicable. Anyone who suggests that the legislation we are considering will give protection to the people who are brought in to work as a result of its provisions is totally naive or just does not care.
      I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Mr. Robin Cook: The matter before us is one of individual conscience on which, on both sides of the House, there are deeply held views. For this reason the Opposition will give its Members a free vote. That being the case, I speak in the debate not for my party but for myself.
      It would be idle to try to conceal from a House that is already aware of it the fact that I speak also as an enthusiastic racegoer. The next time I go to the races on a Saturday, I should be very happy to take my hon. Friend

      191
      the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) along. We could probably visit the silver ring, access to which, at most racecourses in Britain, can be had for £2 or £3, or the Tattersall's enclosure, the cost of access to which, in most cases, is still between £5 and £7. In those enclosures my hon. Friend would find working people. They are there on a Saturday, and not between Monday and Friday, because they have jobs which, by and large, require more punctiliousness about attendance between Monday and Friday than does membership of the House of Commons.
      The argument for providing a race meeting on a Sunday for the convenience of those who wish to enjoy the sport is demonstrated by a look at what happens with other sports. Before coming into the Chamber I looked at yesterday's edition of The Times. There I found four pages of reports on sporting activities that had taken place on Sunday. Premier football league matches are held on Sunday, as—obviously—are Sunday cricket league games. This applies also to the Stone's rugby league. Any hon. Member fortunate enough to have Sunday afternoon off from constituency work will have been able to watch golf or to witness Mark Todd's win at the horse trials.
      The reason for the fact that all those sports are held on a Sunday is blindingly obvious: Sunday is the day on which most people are able to attend. It is the day when sports organisers can secure the biggest crowds. It is the day when most people who want to enjoy sport are able to do so. I have no difficulty with the assertion of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that there should be choice. People who want to exercise that choice by watching their favourite sport should have the right to do so.
      I make no bones about the fact that one reason why all those other sports are provided on a Sunday is that they draw the biggest crowds and bring in the largest amount of money on that day. Racing is entitled to the same opportunity of maximising its income.
      5.30 pm
      I understand that next week the Opposition and the Government will lock horns on the question of competitiveness. Possibly, in this moment of truce, I can concede that we are discussing racing, which is competitive. In Europe, only France and Ireland can match Britain's horse racing industry. Both France and Ireland allow racing on a Sunday. I would hesitate to say that either of them is less Christian than Britain or—without wishing to provoke further interventions from the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Mid-Ulster—Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: If racecourses were opened on Sundays —at £2, £3, £5 or whatever—and more people wanted to use them, which would be a matter for the courses, why do we need to allow betting shops to open the length and breadth of the country?
      Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is taking me further ahead in my speech. May I reach that question in my own time? I will be happy to deal with that serious matter at that time and to give way.
      Because France and Ireland provide racing on Sundays, one can bet on Sundays in Britain. All one needs is a good enough credit rating to ring up and place a credit bet at
      192
      Longchamps or Leopardstown. I do not see why we should deny that opportunity to the cash punter, who does not have a large enough turnover to warrant a credit account. By continuing to ban racing on Sundays, we are perpetuating the racing industry's history of being run to suit the wealthy and privileged, who can get off between Monday and Friday, and not working men who provide most of its income but gain the least of its attentions.
      The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made some trenchant observations about the nature of working life in the racing industry. Candidly, those of us who enjoy racing cannot take any pride in the way that staff in that industry are treated. They are often badly paid and have poor career development, and their accommodation at some racecourses is rather inferior to the quality of accommodation for the horses.
      What does it take to put that right? Money. The best way to get more money into the racing industry is to take advantage of the growth in the leisure market. The best way to do that is to provide racing on the day when most people have time for leisure. That is why, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined the matter, both the Stable Lads Association and the Transport and General Workers Union impressed on it that they did not object to Sunday racing with proper protection. That is why the Jockeys Association of Great Britain has come out in support of Sunday racing in the past week.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned off-course betting and I know that concern for the staff in that industry underlies much of my hon. Friend's concern. My preferred outcome would be Sunday racing with on-course betting, without necessarily having off-course betting. The Select Committee took that position three years ago. I recognise, however, that the Home Office and other people have expressed considerable concern about consequent illegal betting if racing took place without off-course betting. If we believe that we have a social problem with legalised off-course betting, I warn the House that we are likely to have more serious social problems with illegal off-course betting.
      I invite hon. Members to reflect on what might happen if the Derby, which takes place on a Wednesday, were transferred to a Sunday. It is difficult to conceive how one could stage that race without inevitable widespread betting throughout Britain. If that is to happen, it would be better if it took take place within a legalised setting.
      I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who said that he drew the line at betting on a Sunday. I could understand that view if we were drawing the line at gambling. I have some difficulty in drawing a line that allows casinos to open on Sundays, and thus allows gambling to take place, and allows credit betting but not cash betting. For that matter, a recent decision of the House will shortly allow lottery tickets to be bought on a Sunday, but not betting. We are not keeping Sunday special. At best, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we may be keeping it slightly special.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely there is a difference in kind between some of my hon. Friend's examples and allowing betting shops to open throughout the length and breadth of the country in small towns and large cities as a direct result of the new clause.
      Mr. Cook: Obviously, it is a matter of individual conscience and application. My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to apply to the question his own judgments about taste, discrimination and good sense. I find it difficult to distinguish between the character of credit betting by telephone and cash betting over the counter, except that credit betting is confined to people who tend to be better off and have better credit ratings and excludes people who do not have access to that privilege on a Sunday.
      I offer some words of advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose speech was so trenchantly opposed to the bookmakers. I not sure whether he is aware that the Betting Office Licensees Association and the big bookmakers have been lobbying vigorously against the schedule before the House. If he wants to get up the noses of Ladbroke, Hill and Coral, the best way to do so is to vote for the schedule, to which they are strongly opposed. The more they protest about the protection of staff, the more I am convinced that the schedule must be carried. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the two go together.
      We have had a good debate and hon. Members have spoken honestly, frankly and without rhetoric. The House should not make the mistake of failing to recognise the changing character of Sunday. I believe and have observed in my area that families still spend Sunday together, but they do not spend it attending church and sitting at home. They want to go out. Sunday is now the day of the family outing—the day when leisure centres do their biggest business. Racing is well placed to tap that growing market for a special Sunday outing. It provides a spectacle of colour and action. For me, racing provides the most exciting spectacle.
      What particularly impressed me about the three experimental Sunday race meetings was not that they attracted large crowds, but that they attracted crowds of families, who came to enjoy racing together.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: If families are attracted to the racecourse, who will be attending betting shops on Sundays?
      Mr. Cook: That is a perfectly fair question. At present betting shops are on the whole visited by solitary people. Possibly we need to consider the nature of the service provided at betting shops. Perhaps that could be amended.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is entitled to exercise his judgment about whether he would attend a betting shop or a race meeting on a Sunday, but at Cheltenham, Doncaster and Lingfield I saw many families who had chosen to spend the day together attending Sunday racing.
      Sir Peter Emery: I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, so I am even more thankful that he has given way. He was making a powerful plea for families to go together to sports meetings on Sundays and for racing to be included. I do not believe that families go to betting shops. Many of us object to betting shops being open on a Sunday and not to racing on a Sunday.
      Mr. Cook: The right hon. Member must recognise that he faces a choice. It is not a choice that I find comfortable. I wish that we did not have to make it. I would be delighted if I could go racing on a Sunday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, quite fairly, I have an adequate income to travel a considerable distance
      194
      to get to a race meeting on a Sunday. The right hon. Member must face the fact that, if there is racing on Sundays, there will be people who cannot afford the cost of going to a meeting but who will want to bet on a race. If that were to happen, should it happen legally and unofficially, with all its social consequences, or should it happen in licensed betting shops on a legal basis? My judgment is that it is better that it takes place on a legalised basis, but I have been persuaded—albeit I wish that it was not necessary to be so persuaded—that we cannot have racing on Sundays without off-course betting.
      Let me return to the point that I was addressing before giving way. The Sunday experimental meetings were particularly impressive because of the large family attendances. They were particularly satisfactory for families because racecourses cover a large area which can be used to provide something for all the family.
      I believe that the way forward for Sundays is to provide a real family day out. The way forward for racing is to offer families that day out. It is inevitable that one day racing will be able to provide that on a Sunday. I hope that it will be able to start after tonight.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): This is a moment that I shall savour, as I shall not often be able to say that I agreed almost entirely with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When he knows what he is talking about, he can make very good sense.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on seizing the initiative on Sunday racing and betting—a subject on which there have been several private Members' Bills which failed to get through the House. I quite understand why my hon. Friend would want to advance his cause while there is an opportunity for a Government Bill.
      The Government wanted the House to have an early opportunity, after Sunday trading had been decided, freely to reach a decision on the various issues. However, we had envisaged a full consultation by the Government with the industry and others, so that the House could reach a conclusion in the confidence that all the issues had been properly aired and that the choices properly reflected the voice of those affected by the measure. My hon. Friend has jumped the gun and come out of the starting gate before that opportunity arose. I do not criticise him in any way. This is an admirable opportunity to do what he has done, and I welcome it.
      The Government have no objection to the new clause in principle, but as there has not been an opportunity for the considered study that we would have wished, it may be more controversial than it might otherwise have been. In particular, the measures on employment protection, which mirror precisely those in the Sunday Trading Bill, will need to be examined to ensure that they are appropriate in the different context of the betting industry.
      As the hon. Member for Livingston said, such issues divide people on conscientious grounds, and it would be inappropriate for the Whips to be too active in advising hon. Members on how to vote. As this has traditionally been an issue on which the Conservative party allows a free vote, we are content for that to be so today and, if the matter is pressed to a vote, for it to be resolved without the assistance of the Whips.
      There are differing views in the Conservative party. As there has to be an article on the front page of the papers

      195
      every day about splits in the Government, I can confirm that I shall be voting one way and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be voting the other way.
      I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by those who spoke against the new clause today. There are those who, for conscientious or religious reasons, believe in sabbatarianism to a greater or lesser extent and naturally oppose the new clause. I am afraid that I do not share that view, although I recognise that substantial numbers of people do.
      There have been some spirited speeches against what has been described as the disease of gambling, not least by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), whose constituency abuts Aintree racecourse. I last saw the hon. Member for Livingston at the races where I discovered, in the words that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) used many times in Committee, that he is a jolly decent cove. I hope that it will in no way diminish his stature in the House if I say that I discovered him to be a very warm human being.
      Of course, any innocuous activity can be abused if it is indulged to excess, but as a matter of general principle we do not take the view that, because a very small minority of people might not be able to control themselves or might abuse the freedoms we have in society, we should deny those freedoms to everybody else. We have to make a balanced judgment in each individual case as to the appropriate course of action.
      I cannot envisage that, as a result of the proposed changes, which I warmly support, the nation will suddenly be plunged into a hell-hole of gambling the like of which we have never seen before. The addition to the opportunities to bet, which most people use sparingly and with judgment, will not be great.
      5.45 pm
      The Government accept that the principle of employment protection for betting workers ought to feature in the measure to ensure that Sunday working is voluntary. Should the House vote in favour of Sunday racing in new clause 1, the Government will accept amendment No. 1, but as it is technically deficient in a number of ways on account of its being drafted in such a way as to mirror the shops legislation, some elements in it are not appropriate. I will give a example to illustrate my point because I know that Opposition Members will be suspicious of these remarks and it is better that their suspicions should be dispelled as soon as possible.
      Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the proposed new schedule cover the effect of rights on contracts of employment. Unlike shops, the ban on the opening of betting offices in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is a total one. As a result, betting office workers cannot be required to work on a Sunday. Therefore, the provisions relating to existing contracts of shopworkers may not be required for betting workers. We shall have to consider whether this is an appropriate way of drafting the measure.
      Schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Bill distinguishes between protected shop workers and opted-out workers. That arises from the fact that some existing shopworkers may be required to work on Sundays. The position of betting workers is different, so it may not be necessary to make a similar distinction in providing new rights for betting workers. I confirm that it is not the Government's
      196
      intention to produce legislation in which betting workers are treated in any way less favourably than those who work in shops on Sundays.
      The provisions of new clause 1 are almost wholly benign and will be regarded generally in the country as non-controversial. There may be some resource implications for local authorities which supervise the tracks and there will certainly be manpower implications for the police, should Sunday racing become a regular feature, so we would have preferred to undertake consultation with those enforcement bodies, as they would have expected, before such changes were brought before the House. Nevertheless, before the measure is debated in another place, we shall seek to consult all such affected parties so as to take their views properly into account.
      With regard to employment protection, there will be those who will be expect to be consulted on the measure before it is debated in another place. Employment measures are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. While he is content in principle for provision to be made to ensure that Sunday working by betting workers is voluntary, he wishes to consult further. The proposed new schedule, as it suffers from the technical flaws to which I have referred, may be more complicated than necessary. I hope that it will not be pressed in the House but will be withdrawn on the basis of the assurances I have given today that, in another place, the Government will introduce an appropriate measure to achieve the effects that I have described.
      Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's last sentence did not chime with his earlier sentences. If there is some defect in the schedule, plainly there would be no objection to the correction of those defects and technical problems in the other place, particularly if those amendments do not in any way change the present protection provided by that schedule. The Minister may be putting the House in a difficult position by suggesting that the schedule should not be carried today. He is then inviting the House to approve the new clause without seeing precisely what protection will be provided by the schedule.
      Mr. Hamilton: I wish to preserve the amity of the debate and show the flexibility of which I am capable. If the hon. Gentleman suspects that the Government would not come forward with amendments that he might approve, which may diminish his enthusiasm for supporting this liberalising measure, I shall immediately do a U-turn and say that we shall recommend to my hon. Friends that they support the schedule on the basis that we shall seek to amend it in the House of Lords to correct the technical deficiencies that I mentioned a moment ago. After that illustration of verbal dexterity, I have little more to say.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why betting shops should be opened off course. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the danger of illegal off-course betting developing. By definition, it would be unregulated and subject to greater dishonesty and criminality. We know from the experience recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) that there were many such examples in the days when betting shops were illegal. People naturally seek the best price at which to bet, and on the day before a race a starting price would not be available which reflected the latest conditions of the course or the

      197
      horses. Many people would leave betting until shortly before a race in the light of the latest prices being offered on the course.
      As the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out, if some of the big classified races were held on Sundays, the temptation for illegal betting would be almost irresistible. He would not wish that to happen, so it would be much better to treat betting shops in the same way as on-course betting. As there would be no significant risk to the public, I commend the measure to all Members of the House.
      Mr. Paice: With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As I suspect we all know, the debate has shown that this issue raises considerable passion in some quarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Whip on this Bill, told me that his support for the measure was in inverse proportion to the length of the debate, so I shall conclude matters quickly. Rather than respond to all the individual points made by many hon. Members, which would detain the House and be unsatisfactory, I shall make just two points.
      First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and many others referred to on and off-course betting. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs referred to the illegal betting that would spring up, particularly if major races took place on Sundays. It has also been suggested that people could bet the previous day. People always like to bet close to the time of a race. One good reason is that runners often withdraw up until the last few hours before a race, so that any bet becomes invalid. That is a sound reason why people need to bet close to the time of the race.
      Secondly, I understand that feelings differ among hon. Members on both sides of the House about employee protection, but it would be inequitable to offer anything other than the same provisions as those in the Sunday Trading Bill. Some people may think that that is not enough and others may believe that it goes too far. I believe that it is a compromise on the amount of protection to which the House agreed in one context and should accept in another.
      Mr. Jopling: I have no objection to racing taking place on Sundays, but if betting did not take place on Sundays, the bookmaking fraternity—I should have declared an interest as I sometimes advise one of the large bookmaking firms, although it will not be pleased with what I am about to say—would immediately change its rules and take bets on Saturdays to exclude non-runners on Sundays.
      Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend omits a serious point. When people place bets, they look at all the runners. If one runner withdraws, even if it is a horse on which they have not bet, it may throw the odds on all the others, which is why it is necessary to bet close to the time of the event.
      The time is now right for the House to remove the discrimination against the racing industry. I have listened to the debate and am anxious that we should allow racing to compete with the rest of the leisure industry. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 189.

      Division No. 223]

      [5.55 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dowd, Jim

      Alexander, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Allen, Graham

      Elletson, Harold

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ashby, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evennett, David

      Atkins, Robert

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Austin-Walker, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forth, Eric

      Barron, Kevin

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fraser, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gapes, Mike

      Berry, Roger

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Betts, Clive

      Garnier, Edward

      Blair, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Boyes, Roland

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burden, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Butler, Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Byers, Stephen

      Hague, William

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Doug

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coffey, Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Congdon, David

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cran, James

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cummings, John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Darling, Alistair

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Janner, Greville

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dixon, Don

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      199

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Redmond, Martin

      Knapman, Roger

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Reid, Dr John

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Knox, Sir David

      Riddick, Graham

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Legg, Barry

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Leigh, Edward

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lightbown, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sackville, Tom

      Litherland, Robert

      Salmond, Alex

      Livingstone, Ken

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McAllion, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McKelvey, William

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maclean, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, Sir David

      Spring, Richard

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, Iain

      Malone, Gerald

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mans, Keith

      Steen, Anthony

      Marland, Paul

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maxton, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thumham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Trend, Michael

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Needham, Richard

      Walden, George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Norris, Steve

      Watts, John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wells, Bowen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Whitney, Ray

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Whittingdale, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Page, Richard

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Patchett, Terry

      Willetts, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wilshire, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wilson, Brian

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pickles, Eric

      Yeo, Tim

      Pope, Greg

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Mr. James Paice and

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Bates, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Alton, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Amess, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Blunkett, David

      200

      Body, Sir Richard

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Booth, Hartley

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Brazier, Julian

      Lewis, Terry

      Butcher, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lord, Michael

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McCartney, Ian

      Cann, Jamie

      McCrea, Rev William

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Churchill, Mr

      McFall, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Clelland, David

      McWilliam, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Madden, Max

      Connarty, Michael

      Maginnis, Ken

      Corbett, Robin

      Mahon, Alice

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marek, Dr John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Martlew, Eric

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Michael, Alun

      Dafis, Cynog

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Davidson, Ian

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Morley, Elliot

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

      Mullin, Chris

      Day, Stephen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Devlin, Tim

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Dewar, Donald

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      O'Hara, Edward

      Dover, Den

      Olner, William

      Dunn, Bob

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Eastham, Ken

      Parry, Robert

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Enright, Derek

      Pickthall, Colin

      Etherington, Bill

      Pike, Peter L.

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fisher, Mark

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Forman, Nigel

      Randall, Stuart

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Raynsford, Nick

      Foulkes, George

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Galbraith, Sam

      Rooney, Terry

      Gallie, Phil

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Galloway, George

      Rowlands, Ted

      Garrett, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      George, Bruce

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Graham, Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Gunnell, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Hall, Mike

      Sims, Roger

      Hannam, Sir John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hanson, David

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Harris, David

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Snape, Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Soley, Clive

      Hutton, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Illsley, Eric

      Spellar, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Stephen, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Straw, Jack

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Streeter, Gary

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Turner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Wallace, James

      201

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wilkinson, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Donald Anderson and

      Wise, Audrey

      Mr. Paul Flynn.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      HEALTH AND SAFETY
      'No order shall be made under section 1 of this Act which includes any provision amending or repealing any enactment relating to the health and safety of any person'. —[Mr. Fatchett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take New clause 8 — Approval of certain markets (No. 2)
      '(1) Where a person proposes to set up a commercial market that person shall apply to the local authority in whose area he proposes to set up the market for approval of the setting up of that market.
      (2) Where an application for the grant or renewal of approval has been made under subsection (1) above to a local authority, the local authority shall—

      (a) give or renew that approval subject to such reasonable conditions as the local authority think fit; or

      (b) refuse to give that approval, provided that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

      (3) A grant or renewal of approval under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is granted or such other longer period as the local authority giving or renewing the approval may determine.
      (4) The local authority may charge a reasonable fee in respect of an application for the grant or renewal of an approval under subsection (2) above and different fees may be charged for different classes, sizes and locations of market.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision as to approvals and regulation in relation to the setting up of commercial markets.
      (6) A person who sets up a rival commercial market without approval of the setting up of that market having been given or as the case may be renewed under subsection (2) above, or who carries on such a market in breach of any conditions attached to the grant or renewal of an approval, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      (7) In this section, "local authority", "market" and "right of market", have the same meaning as in section 22 above and "commercial market" means a market other than a market

      (a) which is a temporary market within the meaning of section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and

      (b) the proceeds of which are to be applied solely or principally for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes.'.

      Mr. Fatchett: We may have moved from a consensual position—at least for the Front Benches—to an issue that will give rise to some controversy. New clause 5 would remove any reference to health and safety from what will be section 1; we argue that provisions for health and safety, both at work and generally, should not be dealt with by means of the general powers included in the Bill.
      202
      In a speech to the European Policy Forum last autumn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was quoted as saying:
      "Our response to recent large scale disasters has been out of all proportion to the disasters themselves."
      He went on to mention our reaction to the Kings Cross fire —in which at least 30 people were killed—and the Marchioness disaster, in which 50 people were drowned.
      I am not making a personal attack on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The powers in the Bill will be given to Ministers generally, allowing them to amend and repeal health and safety provision and to affect security that has been built up over decades and generations. I have quoted the Parliamentary Under-Secretary merely to make the important point that he and, I suspect, other Ministers—especially those at the Department of Employment—approach the issue with a particular perspective and a particular ideological bent. That is why we seek to remove any reference to health and safety from the first four clauses of the Bill.
      We have said throughout that we find the powers in those first four clauses unacceptable, and that they should in no circumstances be used to repeal primary legislation; we are now arguing that they should not be used to deal with health and safety provisions. Let me demonstrate the extent of the problems. Health and safety is a vast issue, which should be dealt with separately from the specific powers in the first four clauses. The record shows that there are 1.6 million workplace accidents each year, and that 2 million people suffer from occupational diseases; in 1991, 473 people were killed at work. Those statistics represent costs to individuals and their immediate families, and burdens on business.
      There is also a cost to the economy. The cost of industrial accidents and disease is estimated to be some £16,000 million a year. Moreover, a recent publication from the Royal College of Nursing drew attention to the costs of accidents and injuries at work to a certain NHS hospital, estimating that 5 per cent. of that hospital's running costs would relate to industrial injuries and illnesses.
      New clause 5, however, relates not just to industrial provision but to
      "the health and safety of any person".
      Opposition Members fear that the Government may intend to amend or repeal fire safety regulations, thus reducing the safety and security of certain people. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) is well aware of last week's tragic events in his constituency: he responded to them by calling for tougher regulation and more inspections, and we support and respect what he said. He was also right to suggest that many landlords are using the social security system to provide housing for multiple occupation which does not meet standards that should be met in a civilised society.
      Having read some of the newspaper reports of those tragic events, I feel that the hon. Gentleman's comments were appropriate; and they are also relevant to the Bill, given that it is a deregulation Bill that attempts to remove existing provision and security. I should have thought that last week's events in Scarborough showed that, on the contrary, we should tighten provision and improve inspection and standards.

      203
      6.15 pm
      The statistics make my case compellingly. They reveal that an average of 800 people a year are killed in fire-related incidents in the United Kingdom, which has a higher fire death rate per million than any other European Union country. Each year, moreover, deaths resulting from accidents related to foam-filled furniture run into the hundreds.
      We want to know the Government's intentions. I hope that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the problem; so why are we concerned about their intentions? The answer is simple: we do not necessarily believe in the Government's good intentions. They always say, as they did many times in Committee, "Trust us—leave it to us." They say that they will not reduce security and safeguards. I simply do not accept that. There are times when, rather than accepting the Government's words, we must look at their record; we should examine some of the rhetoric from Ministers about deregulation, the way in which the deregulation initiative has been presented to the House and the general argument that has been advanced. That argument has always been about taking the burden from industry.
      Again, let me refer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Scarborough. There is a burden on one small business to observe the fire regulations and general health and safety provisions—a burden and a cost, which the evidence suggests may not have been met. That cost to one individual, however, also represents security, a safeguard and a benefit to others. That is the equation: the cost to one business is the right of another employee or consumer. Opposition Members are in the business of protecting the rights of such people.
      Mr. John Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about what happened in my constituency last week. Unfortunately, neither of us knows why those people died. It could well be that the person concerned smoked in bed, but—however hard we may try—we cannot introduce a law to stop people smoking in bed, although it may be enough to cause a fire. Until we know the exact reason for the fire, I do not think it right for the hon. Gentleman to use it as an excuse for his new clause.
      Mr. Fatchett: At the time of the event, the hon. Gentleman simply argued that there was a need for tighter regulation and stronger licensing provisions. If ever there was an argument to support my views, it was his first and, I think, honourable reaction.
      We need to strike a balance that takes account of other interests. Throughout the Committee stage, we feared that the Government's interests that come to the forefront will always relate to business; we feel that other costs and interests must be taken into account. We also believe that the provisions in clauses I to 4 will severely restrict our opportunity to debate these key issues properly. We have always said that we are not willing to give additional powers to the Executive, and we shall debate these issues again tomorrow and on Thursday.
      The new clause is a second-best option. We should like all the Henry VIII powers removed because there is no justification for them but, if they are to remain, we believe that the specific issues of health and safety at work and fire safety and the general safety provisions should be removed from the first four clauses and from the general excessive
      204
      new powers to be given to Ministers. We believe that every Member of Parliament should feel that he or she has a voice and a part to play in this debate on behalf of his or her constituents. We believe that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory, and I therefore commend new clause 5 to my hon. Friends and to the House as a whole.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: On Second Reading, I spoke of the need for clarity on the issue of health and safety as it is reflected in the Bill. In Committee, I pressed the Minister several times to clarify exactly how he saw the balance between the burden on business and necessary protection. In a written question on 15 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked the Secretary of State for Employment
      "which health and safety at work regulations he considers to be a burden on business."
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment answered:
      "This is among the questions that I have put to the Health and Safety Commission and I am awaiting its advice."—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 636.]
      How to ensure the health and safety and welfare of our work force is one of the most important issues facing us today, but we are having to try to secure the necessary protection in the context of clauses on which the Government have yet to receive clear advice from the body set up to advise them. Perhaps that advice has been made clear since 15 March—it certainly had not been made clear while the Bill was in Committee—and, if so, I invite the Minister to tell us which regulations have been identified as a burden by the Health and Safety Commission.
      If the list deals entirely with pre-1974 regulations, the Government are approaching this important issue in entirely the wrong way. The solution would be a relatively minor amendment to section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which would give the commission the power to advise the Minister so that matters could be dealt with more smoothly and in a more structured way. I presented the same argument in broad terms in Committee, but we are working in a vacuum.
      The whole debate is in a vacuum because the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify what was meant by "a burden on business". I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, understands that other Ministers have in previous debates described what they regarded as burdens on business. One extremely good example was provided in a late night Adjournment debate to which the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replied. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) dealt with the safety of outdoor pursuit centres, and the Minister described his call for regulation of those centres as a burden on business. He did so in the context of the tragic death of four young people.
      If the House is examining the Bill in a vacuum, and if the only information at our disposal comes from statements made late at night in which Ministers of the Crown give their definition of burdens on business in relation to health and safety matters, it is no wonder that there is a major difference in the approach of our two parties.
      The whole health and safety debate has always centred on the difficult balance that exists. Any hon. Member who was involved in training in health and safety matters back in 1974–76 will remember the commission's early posters, which showed scales representing the balance between the cost of improving safety and the benefits to employees. It

      205
      is a difficult balance to strike and it must be dealt with subject by subject, regulation by regulation, and with great care. We cannot give sweeping powers to the Minister because the only information available is based on a set of vague generalisations given by his colleagues in relation to other matters. Until we debate specific regulations, we cannot make progress.
      In a letter to members of the Committee, the Chemical Industries Association wrote:
      "The chemical industry believe that much of the framework of existing regulations specifically affecting the chemical industry, eg, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the COSHH Regulations, is fundamentally sound; in many cases, however, there is a need for greater clarity and consistency in interpretation."
      This is especially relevant to my constituency, and the Minister of State will recall that last week I presented to him a petition on matters related to health and safety. The industry is pleading for better regulation and does riot want sweeping powers to be given to the Minister. The Bill approaches the issue in entirely the wrong way, and I urge the House to support new clause 5.
      Mr. Adam Ingram: I support new clause 5 and wish to draw to the attention of the House and, I hope, that of the Minister an article that appeared in The Independent yesterday and that resulted in a leader column dealing with the implications of health and safety regulations. The article and the leader column dealt with the tragic case of a constituent of mine, Mr. William Neilson, who died on 9 June 1992, aged 61, of broncho-pneumonia, radiation-induced myeloid leukaemia, radiation dermatitis and radiation-induced myelodysphasia.
      Mr. Neilson worked as an industrial radiographer for a company called Metal and Pipeline Endurance Ltd.—MAPEL. His work involved using portable equipment with components that emitted radiation more powerful and penetrating than that of hospital X-rays. The medical inquiry held after his death revealed that he had received a cumulative dose of radiation of about 15 grays. Grays are the means by which radiation is measured. The dose of radiation that he received was 15,000 times that contained in a single chest X-ray.
      6.30 pm
      What is disturbing about Mr. Neilson's death is that no one is accepting any responsibility for it—not his employer, MAPEL, and not BP at Grangemouth, where he worked as a subcontracted employee of MAPEL. The Health and Safety Executive has also said that it will not take any action in relation to the case. I argue that the case must call into question the existing health and safety protection afforded to people such as Mr. Neilson who work as industrial radiographers.
      About 8,000 people in the country today are undertaking vital work in the non-destructive testing of pipes and metal structures. According to the National Radiological Protection Board, they are the most exposed of all of those who work with radiation sources. In 1991 alone, 60 such workers received doses above the level requiring investigation and 10 received more than the maximum legal dose. We should compare that with the 40,000 people who work in the nuclear industry. None of them came near receiving the maximum dose of radiation, and only seven cases warranted investigation.
      The fact that statistics are available shows that monitoring is taking place under the existing regulations.
      206
      Yet Mr. Neilson's condition was not identified early enough to save his life. No excess of radiation was ever recorded on the detection badge which he wore daily to his place of work.
      Therefore, I am most surprised that the Health and Safety Executive should have dismissed responsibility for Mr. Neilson's death by saying that it would take no further action. I am also very surprised by the attitude of Mr. Neilson's employer, who said at the time of his death that Mr. Neilson was not working for the company. But at the time that Mr. Neilson received the dose of radiation which resulted in his death, he was working for MAPEL and BP, and he was supposedly under the monitoring control of the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant regulations, the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985. Someone was responsible for Mr. Neilson's death, yet no one is prepared to admit it. That is simply not acceptable.
      The Bill will reduce the level of protection that is afforded to people such as the late Mr. Neilson and the other 8,000 industrial radiographers. If it goes ahead and the Government proceed with their intention, more deaths are likely to occur. I see that the Minister rejects that notion. If he rejects it, perhaps he should tell the House what action he has taken following the report in The Independent of yesterday. Has he asked the Health and Safety Executive to respond to that report? Is the executive now undertaking an urgent inquiry? Is it prepared to say that it has responsibility in this area and that it will investigate in detail what took place at the time?
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have seen the report and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Yes, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to report to me about the circumstances of that case, just as I have asked the Health and Safety Commission—which is a tripartite body—to look at the regulations. I have given clear instructions that no measures should be recommended that would undermine standards of health and safety. I think that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to seek to make parallels, but, in view of his interest in the case, I assure him that I will keep him informed about the response we receive from the Health and Safety Executive.
      Mr. Ingram: I am grateful that the Minister has responded in that way. It would have been useful if he had made some public statement about the matter today. Clearly, there are grave worries about the future regulations which will apply to health and safety generally, and specifically to this field. I appreciate that the Minister is to keep me informed; I hope that he will keep the House informed as well, because there is general concern about the future protection of such employees.
      The question remains why the Health and Safety Executive dismissed that case in the way that it did. I suspect that it is because the organisation has been understaffed and its funds cut substantially. There have been major cuts in the grants allocated to safety representatives this year, and the Government intend to cut their support entirely.
      It is all very well for the Minister to say that he is concerned about the matter. I am not surprised that he has responded in that way. When a major newspaper reports in detail and raises concerns of that sort, I would not expect anything less of the Government.

      207
      I ask the Government to accept the principle of new clause 5: aspects relating to health and safety should not be included in the Bill. That will satisfy those people who are working in very dangerous circumstances—many of them risking their lives for the good of the country by undertaking much-needed work in industrial radiography. That is the message that should come from the debate tonight. The only way that we can really satisfy those who work in that area—Mr. Neilson's widow, to whom I have spoken today, would agree—is by saying that further protection will be given to people who work in that field, thereby avoiding future deaths. We can satisfy their demands by supporting new clause 5.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I support new clause 5. We have been told that the Bill is about lifting unnecessary burdens, while retaining necessary protection. I do not think that it will do that, and I want to spend a couple of minutes looking at the implications for health and safety of what is proposed.
      The Government's game plan seems to be to move responsibility for fire safety from the fire brigade, where it has rested since 1961, to local authority building control departments. Under the Bill, the functions of the building control departments could be contracted out to the private sector, so the responsibility for fire safety could end up outside the hands of a public authority.
      The Government have treated the fire service in an absolutely shameful way. It has been sidelined and ignored. A construction industry task force looked at fire safety matters and released a report entitled "Deregulation Task Force". The document was deposited in the Library after the Committee had dealt with clause 27 of the Bill and, therefore, we could not refer to it in our considerations. However, I have since had the opportunity to look through it in detail, and it is perfectly clear that the individuals who put their names to the report know absolutely nothing about the fire service.
      The task force was chaired by none other than Mr. Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction. The task force is packed with people who have business interests in the construction industry and who are closely allied to Conservative interests. Astonishingly, the fire brigade was not invited to sit on the task force or to give evidence to the task force.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. We went through all these points in Committee and I answered all the questions. In particular, I made the point that that task force document has since been superseded by the on-going fire service review and one of the five participants in the review is the chief fire officer of the county of Durham. How can the hon. Gentleman claim credibly that the fire service is being ignored or that its concerns are not being taken properly into account?
      Mr. Prentice: I do not accept that for one moment. The document which formed the Government's thinking was "Deregulation Task Force". No doubt its recommendations filtered through into the document which the Department prepared under the title "Cutting Red Tape".
      I have a submission from the fire authority in my constituency in Lancashire which makes some very modest criticism of the process. It says:
      208
      "It is disappointing to note that these proposals"—
      the proposals which have emerged from the process—
      "have not been discussed with agencies responsible for the enforcement of current regulations and legislation until after they were submitted, thereby providing only one side of the argument and setting the agenda for other interested parties to follow."
      It beggars belief that in that initiative, which was to involve the cutting of red tape and the lifting of burdens but also, in a sphere as vital as fire safety, the safeguarding of necessary protections, the fire brigade was not even consulted.
      The construction industry task force, through Mr. Spackman of Bovis Construction and his acolytes, said:
      "Problems of consistency and quality of input are considerable. Whilst the Building Regulations are capable of standard interpretation through official guidance, the Fire Regulations are neither scientific nor consistently applied. Individual Fire Officers can have either substantial or little training and respond to most situations using common sense and custom and practice precedents."
      What informed that conclusion? We were given no evidence in Committee to back that assertion.
      We ask the House to support the new clause because our contention is that responsibility for the fire regulations should lie with fire authorities. It seems self-evident that the people who risk their lives to put out fires, the people who 24 hours a day live, breathe and think about the complex of issues involving fire and fire prevention, should not be sidelined in that way. The fire brigade, not only in Lancashire but all over the country, has the knowledge, the skill and the practical experience of how fires behave and how people react in a fire, yet that is to count for nothing.
      In Committee we were treated to several vaudeville performances by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who had a few funny stories up his sleeve, such as the one about the fire officer who wanted the sign on the fire door changed from red to green, and wanted the size altered half a dozen times, and so on. But the Lancashire fire authority tells me that, as we would expect from that Minister, such criticisms have been massively overstated.
      I am told that there was a review of the Minister's Department in 1993—the Department of Trade and Industry's "Review of the Implementation and Enforcement of EC law in the UK". That review touched on such matters, and it confirmed what I am saying. The scale of the problem had been massively exaggerated.
      If the fire authorities have been falling down in their duty, why has the problem never been brought before the House before? All fire authorities are inspected annually by the Home Office fire services inspectors, and every year the report goes to the Home Secretary, yet until now nothing has ever been brought before the House to alert us to the possibility that our fire authorities are falling down on the job.
      The truth is that fire authorities are not falling down on the job. The whole exercise is ideologically driven—we shall return to that point on Thursday. It is driven by an absolute hatred of anything provided by public authorities, whether local authorities or fire authorities, and a determination to transfer to the private sector everything that is not nailed down.
      I shall finish with a few statistics from my area. I have already mentioned the Minister's Laurel and Hardy act in Committee; yet if the fire authorities were making such a hash of things, why has Lancashire fire brigade, which carried out 40,000 inspections last year, received only two complaints since 1991? If the fire brigades are falling down

      209
      on the job of inspecting premises under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which they rigorously enforce because they have the duty and responsibility to ensure that people are not incinerated in preventable fires, why have there been only three prosecutions in Lancashire since 1991?
      The fire brigade is doing a pretty good job, and there is no evidence for the Government's contention that its responsibilities should be transferred to local authority building control departments. I hope that the House will support the new clause.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. George Galloway: I shall add briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has said. I warn the Minister, who is jolly decent cove and a jolly intelligent one too, that, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained, he ought to know better than to oppose the new clause. I choose my words carefully, and do not mean to make a joke, when I say that the Minister is playing with fire with his proposal to take powers from the proper fire authorities and to pass to less qualified hands the duty of inspecting premises to ensure that their fire precautions are appropriate.
      The Minister should bear in mind the fact that fire authorities and the fire service are among the most popular groups of public officials in the country. Their people are literally heroes, and everyone knows that they have saved lives both by their urgent and efficacious interventions in fires and by preventing tragedy through the assiduousness of their preventive work on fire precautions.
      A few weeks ago in my constituency, encouraged by the splendid Fire Brigades Union—one of the oldest and best trade unions in the country—we did some street work with postcards and petitions, explaining to passers-by the Government's plans to take powers away from the fire authorities and fire services. That took place in an area that was once a Conservative constituency, yet I do not exaggerate when I say that the people there were surprised. It is difficult to shock people after 15 years' experience of the Thatcher-Major Government, yet people were not only shocked but horrified by the proposal.
      In this building I recently had a conversation with the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland. One of the most telling points that they made—I should like to hear the Minister's answer to it—was that, if the fire authorities are deprived of the responsibility of making regular inspections of buildings, some of which are tinderboxes, with fires waiting to happen, the first time that fire service people will be inside some of those premises is when they have to batter down the doors with their hoses in order to attack a potentially devastating fire.
      One of the experiences that the authority gains from its current responsibilities is that its regular visits to premises as part of the licensing process give it an intimate knowledge of the layout and interior of those premises, of the parts of the building likely to cause difficulties in a fire and of the approach that could theoretically be taken if a fire occurred. If we take that responsibility away from the fire authorities and the fire service, by definition they will be deprived of that important and potentially life-saving experience.
      The Conservative party is supposed to be party with the slogan, "If it's not broken, why fix it?" but of course, nowadays there is now a new breed of Conservative—
      210
      people who are not so attached to that essentially Conservative principle. I cannot for the life of me understand what the Government are doing, and that applies to all their present proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made clear, there is no evidence among public opinion anywhere that the current system is in any way broken or deficient. In all the years that I have been in the House since 1987, we have never once been told of any significant failings in the current system.
      The truth is that the change is not being made as a result either of the need to implement better practice or of any complaint arising from public opinion. The essence, the secret, of the change—we shall hear it over and over again in the next three days—lies in the vested interests that were stuffed into the task forces. Of course, the Minister will say that there was another tier to the task forces and that a fire officer from Durham was eventually put on them, but I have never heard him explain why the fire authorities were not represented in the first place on the task forces that drew up the blue document—produced this evening—which informed their thinking and that of the review tier of the body that looked into the matter.
      The task forces, which have been the driving force behind the proposal before us, are stuffed full of vested interests, many of which make substantial financial donations to the Conservative party. They are more concerned with the price of the service than its value, knowing as they do the price of everything and the value of nothing.
      Of course, most Conservative Members, however sheepishly, will troop behind the Minister, but I warn them in my closing remarks, as I did at the beginning of my speech, that the Government are playing with fire. The first time that a devastating fire destroys property and kills human beings as a result of the change—believe me, one does not need a crystal ball to envisage that it will not be many years before such a tragedy occurs—the responsibility will be laid fairly and squarely with the Minister, whom I admire and whom I caution, even at this eleventh hour, to change course. That responsibility will lie with the Minister, with the Government and with the Conservative party.
      Mr. Richard Burden: When the deregulation initiative was first mooted and when the Bill was first talked about, one subject that aroused more public suspicion than any other was the likely threat to health and safety. Ministers sought to dampen those worries and those suspicions all the way through, but they remain. As my hon. Friends have already said, those worries and suspicions remain on the definition of what is a burden on business. What are those health and safety regulations and standards that Conservative Members and, they believe, businesses find so difficult to bear?
      The nearest thing that I have found to a Government definition of a burden on business is when they described what bad regulations are in their booklet on deregulation "Cutting Red Tape". One of the things that the document says is that bad regulations "waste time and money". What is a waste of time and money? It rather depends on who is defining the issue. In a cut-throat market and in those industries where the deregulation initiative has already had its effect, practices apparently waste time and money if they cut profit margins, because that can often mean the difference between staying in business and going out of

      211
      business. That is when cost-cutting occurs. When cost-cutting occurs, that is when corner-cutting occurs, and when corner-cutting occurs, that is when health and safety standards start to suffer.
      That is not scaremongering. It is happening already. Let us look, for instance, at the coach industry, which has already been subject to deregulation. Only last week, we read in the papers about the coach crash in Kent in November. It was believed to have happened—arguments have been put forward—because the advanced braking system on the coach was not working. The Department of Transport has—it seems—issued three sets of orders relating to ABS braking, which could have prevented coaches being on the roads until problems had been rectified. Either those orders were not enforced properly or they were not capable of being enforced properly, but the result was that that accident happened and 10 people died, including the coach driver.
      So far, nobody has been held responsible for that accident. Even the coroner said that there was no candidate in the company whose negligence could be proved to have caused those deaths, even though another driver had pointed out the problems on that coach's braking system some 13 months previously. Indeed, we were told that the driver involved was not aware of that problem.
      Faced with the classic example of that coach crash in Kent, are we honestly saying that the problem is too much regulation? Or is the problem, as I believe, not enough effective regulation and not enough effective enforcement? That is important to me as I come from the west midlands, where, only a couple of months ago—indeed, on the very day that, in Committee, we were discussing what is now clause 28, which relates to health and safety—a report was published by the west midlands health and safety advice centre called "The Perfect Crime".
      That report detailed a study undertaken into workplace deaths in the west midlands area—some 28 work-related deaths—between 1988 and 1992. Its conclusion, backed by Sir Anthony Scrivener, Queen's counsel, was that, of those 28 cases, at least four could have resulted in a manslaughter prosecution and seven should have been referred to the police for criminal investigation and passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eight of the cases were inadequately investigated by the enforcement agencies and required further investigation, and five could have involved prosecution under health and safety law.
      The families involved in those four cases in which, perhaps, a manslaughter prosecution should have been brought—the families of Dennis Wall, Dennis Clarke, Reginald Price and Tara Singh—expect their Government to recognise the incalculable burden that they have suffered in losing their loved ones. Not surprisingly, they are perhaps less than patient with a Government who see burdens only when they are burdens on business. If that is the only language in which the Government are prepared to talk and the only currency that they are prepared to understand, perhaps they should do their own calculations on the £16 billion cost of workplace-related accidents and on the £6 billion that accidents at work cost businesses.
      If the new clause is not added, the Bill will contain no provision that says that health and safety standards are a no-go area when it comes to the deregulation initiative. We have been assured by Ministers on Second Reading and in
      212
      Committee—no doubt, we shall be so assured again today —that their intention is not to remove what they describe as necessary protection. However, time and again in Committee during debates on health and safety and, indeed, during debates on other aspects of the Bill, we have asked what they mean by "necessary protection". What is the bottom line? Which standards do they think are not appropriate for deregulation? We have never on any occasion heard a clear answer from Ministers.
      If ever there were a reason for the new clause to be added, it is not what I have said or what my hon. Friends have said, but the words of the Minister. At the first meeting of the Committee on 15 February 1994, I asked the Minister a direct question. Many Conservative Members have referred to the Health and Safety Commission today and its role in the deregulation initiative and in the task forces. I asked the Minister whether he could assure us that no health and safety regulations would be removed if that removal did not have the support of the trade unions and of the Health and Safety Commission.
      The Minister said:
      "I am not saying that that would occur only when trade unions were involved, but we would obviously follow the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission."
      A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the Minister a slight variation of that question. He asked:
      "Will the Minister now give a commitment that the powers in clause 1 will not be used on any occasion on which the Health and Safety Commission objects?"
      The Minister gave the following reply:
      "I regard it as going against the tripartite nature of the Health and Safety Commission for the hon. Gentleman to single out trade unions for special privilege. I hope that he will withdraw that remark, in view of the nature of the commission.
      On the Health and Safety Commission, I said—I think that I am quoting myself correctly—that I regard it as most improbable or most unlikely… I would not like to go further than that"— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 1994; c. 27–28.]
      The Opposition's message is that we expect Ministers
      —I believe that the public do as well—to go further than that. Health and safety standards must not be the casualty of the deregulation initiative. The families of all those who are injured at work—the families of the nine people who lose their lives every week at work—expect better from their Government, and their Government can give them better by accepting the new clause.
      7 pm
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: Over the past hour, my hon. Friends have shown how strong our feelings are about the Bill, especially in terms of its possible effect on health and safety. Those of us who were members of the Committee are aware that we are a highly privileged bunch of hon. Members because we have at least discussed deregulation measures in detail. The purpose of the Bill is to remove that privilege from Members of Parliament, so that regulations will not have that proper scrutiny.
      As we discussed the specific items on the face of the Bill in Committee, we kept coming back to the inadequate definitions which are so worrying, and we shall come back to them on Thursday. What is a burden on business? At what point do the costs to an industry become so great that it is important that the burden is lifted? At what point does "necessary protection"—no adequate definition has been given to us—come into effect? At every end and turn, the

      213
      Government, through the Bill, have sought to offer to business the guarantee that if it shouts loud enough that regulations are too great a cost to it, they will act in the interests of business rather than in the interests of the public. I thought that the Government were supposed to act in the interests of the public.
      That point is felt most sharply in health and safety. In health and safety terms, what is a burden for business may be a man or woman's life at work. A human life does not and cannot have a price. The fire officers and the members of the Fire Brigades Union to whom we have talked during the passage of the Bill have reminded us, time and again, that every fire regulation and every health and safety at work regulation has come out of a tragedy.
      Whenever there is a tragedy or a death, the people around say, "This must not happen again. How can we ensure that it does not happen again?" A regulation is then introduced for a particular industry or a particular budding. To remove those regulations because they are a cost to business will clearly put lives at risk.
      I hope that the Government will consider the following point. I am almost certain that in a few minutes, we shall be told that we have been scaremongering, as we were told several times in Committee. The Government could consider tonight the point that, even within the context of the Bill, by accepting that health and safety regulations and fire regulations should fall outside the group of regulations which the Bill can be used to deregulate, they would withdraw the accusation of scaremongering and would lift the threat to the lives and limbs of people at work.
      The Government should simply accept the new clause and take out of the Bill anything to do with health and safety, life and limb and the threat to lives. The Government could take that simple action tonight. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government believe that public opinion is such that they will bow not just to the Opposition, but to public opinion. I hope that, because the public believe that health and safety is so important, the Government will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Michael Clapham: We must be clear that the Bill is, in part, about restricting the right of workers, under health and safety legislation, to a say in their working environment. That is why the new clause is important. It would maintain a high standard of health and safety in manufacturing industry by ensuring that no order that threatened the health and safety of any person could be made. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the new clause. If the new clause is not included in the Bill, the Government will be free to bring back 19th-century working conditions. That is what the Bill is all about. It will create working conditions that will attract the worst employers.
      The real burden of health and safety falls on those who suffer from accidents or ill health caused by their work, as my hon. Friends have said strongly this evening. According to figures recently published by the GMB, the cost to employers of work accidents and ill health is between £4 billion and £9 billion. The cost to society is reckoned to be between £10 billion and £15 billion. Clearly, employers, employees and society cannot afford that continuing cost. The Government should endeavour to ensure that the record becomes better and they should not create a situation which is likely to make things worse. That is why we must support the new clause. If it is not accepted, we can expect the record to worsen.
      214
      The real problem in health and safety is not that legislation is too restrictive, but that many employers fail to comply with the existing laws. The Health and Safety Executive has drawn attention, time and again, to non-compliance in sectors such as construction, textiles, chemicals and, I am afraid to say, local authorities.
      The Government claim that they are easing the burden on business, but that is a ruse, as the Minister knows. In circumstances where it suits the Government, they have imposed unnecessary burdens on business. The administration of statutory sick pay is just one of the burdens that the Government have imposed on business. At first glance, the Bill may not appear to be that unreasonable in the area of health and safety. Clearly, laws need to be relevant and understandable. However, when the veneer is scratched away, we see clearly that there is more than meets the eye to the Bill.
      The deregulation of health and safety must be seen in the context of the Government's hostility to the European Commission's social action programme. The Government are opposed to the health and safety legislation that is required by the "six pack" of European directives. That is the real intention of deregulating health and safety—it has nothing to do with abolishing obsolete legislation.
      If the Government want to do something positive about health and safety, they should implement a new consultative machinery between the Health and Safety Executive and employers. They should increase the number of field inspectors and ensure that more resources are available for the training of shop floor health and safety inspectors. I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches realise that if the new clause is not accepted—I am sorry, I meant to say Government Benches.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: They will be soon.
      Mr. Clapham: It is true that Tory Members will be on the Opposition Benches soon. If the new clause is not accepted by the Government, the situation in industry will worsen, to the detriment of employers, employees and the community generally.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: As my hon. Friends have said, it is the Government's inability to define what is meant by "burden" and "necessary protection" which causes us the most disquiet and which we are justified in being concerned about, because what we are discussing here are protections that will put at risk human health and, in extreme circumstances, take away human life.
      The burden with which the Government are most concerned to lift from employers—be it in business, industry or the service sector—is that of responsibility. It is that responsibility, which carries with it a moral element —it certainly should in the field that we are discussing —that the Government wish to remove as a protective element for the British work force. We should not be surprised by that, because the Government have advertised the British work force in Germany not on the level of their skills or ability but on the fact that they will work for less than any other European workers.
      The Government have also boasted that they have kept this country out of the EC health and safety directives. This country is becoming one of the most dangerous places in Europe in which to work.
      It seems that the Government's proposals on the face of the Bill, which will preclude any future Parliament from examining such proposals in any detail, are something

      215
      which the whole House should take seriously, and to which it should give serious consideration. That is why I trust that the House will vote in support of our new clause.
      We are at a time in the development of industry and business when workers are constantly being expected to use new materials and new procedures. We are in an area where dangers come from we do not know what. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) pointed out, our existing health and safety legislation procedures usually came after some major and tragic accident. If the new clause is not accepted by the House tonight, we are at risk of increasing the possibility of such tragedies in a way that we have not seen before. Some of the processes and procedures which workers are now having to use are still very much an unknown area.
      One can only look at the life that we as individuals know. It used to be that when we needed to go to the dentist and we needed an X-ray, the dentist and his assistant would stay in the room. We now know that that is a dangerous procedure—the dentist and his assistant now stand behind the protective screen or leave the room. If we look at the use of hypodermic needles in medicine, it used to be that they would be tossed with a cavalier disregard into any sort of receptacle. Since the discovery of how HIV and AIDS are transmitted, hypodermic needles and other such implements must go in protective boxes, cartons or bags.
      We are constantly developing new procedures, processes and materials in a modern industrial society, but our knowledge of the possible dangers from those processes and procedures is not keeping pace with that forward thrust. That is why it is an extremely dangerous proposal on behalf of the Government simply to savage and sabotage those protections such as they have allowed to remain for the work force in this country. It is also the reason why I hope that the House will vote for the new clause tonight.
      Mr. John Heppell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Hon. Members will remember that I was unhappy at Second Reading not because of what was on the face of the Bill—things such as the market charters and other important things. This issue does not affect people's lives—it decides whether they live or not. It is probably the most important issue that we will discuss tonight.
      When the Minister talks about burdens, he must recognise that there is not only a burden on people in terms of personal suffering as a result of accidents at work; there is also a burden on the state. It has been estimated that the cost to the country of accidents at work is between £10 billion and £15 billion, and that 70 per cent. of all accidents could have been avoided. At present, it seems that we should not be relaxing regulations—we should be ensuring that they are properly enforced.
      7.15 pm
      The Government's response is to make cuts in the Health and Safety Commission. They have cut spending by 5 per cent., and 120 jobs in the commission have been lost this year. However, we need to look beyond what the Health and Safety Commission and the health and safety legislation do, because people's health and safety are determined by other legislation. As hon. Members said, most legislation usually comes about as a result of some
      216
      sort of disaster. It is usually the stable door approach. Some people would describe it as the tombstone approach—as the tombstones mount up, the pressure for legislation mounts up. We have seen that time and time again.
      We have certainly seen that with regard to fire regulations. Before 1970, all fire regulations came about because of a major disaster. Since then, to our shame, every piece of legislation has come about because of a major disaster. What we have now are a Government who are prepared in one breath to say that they will ensure that proper safety is there, and at the same time in the background they are prepared to erode people's safety. I can give many examples of that.
      I can understand why the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) was happy to dismiss everything about Scarborough and say that they have not quite made up their mind about the problem. When we discussed the building and fire regulations in Committee, we were told that we were scaremongering and terrifying people when there was no need for it. I am happy to be a scaremonger if it makes the Government think twice about the legislation that they want to change. I was happy to be a scaremonger with regard to the regulations on furniture fittings. The Government were examining those regulations—they wanted to repeal the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. The regulations were amended in 1989, but they were still not properly in force in 1993.
      The Government wanted to amend the Gas Cooking Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1989 with regard to second-hand cookers. People recognised the danger of that. The Government wanted to look at the Heating Appliances (Fire Guards) (Safety) Regulations 1991 and the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were introduced after a blaze of publicity—I am sorry; I did not intend to make that pun. We all saw the pictures on television of children whose nightgowns had caught fire. The Government wanted to examine the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989, although only a couple of years ago a child was killed after throwing a dangerous toy on to a fire.
      The Government wanted to look at all those things. That is why I cannot trust the Government and they should not be given a blank cheque in terms of fire safety. In Committee, we were told that the things that the Government were doing were all innocuous. They said that local building Acts were of no consequence and that they were getting rid of outdated Acts.
      Within a fortnight of the Committee voting on that, "World In Action" showed what building regulations meant. It showed a good example in one of the companies which was advising the Government on deregulation—Sainsbury. The programme showed a Sainsbury store and the local building regulations said that the store should have sprinklers and divisions in the roof space to stop the spread of fire. Those were ignored, and there was an appeal to the Secretary of State about the regulations. The appeal was upheld and the sprinklers and the divisions in the roof space were not put in.
      The building burned down, not because of any fire inside, but because a wheelie bin caught fire outside. The fire spread to the roof and across the building, which burned down. Luckily, no one's life was lost, but that could have happened so easily. If the fire had occurred during the day, and not in the evening, the fire brigade was quite certain that it would not have been able to evacuate people from the store. That is one example of the Government saying one thing but doing another.

      217
      I shall turn quickly to security at airports. I was quite happy to be a scaremonger after I found out that Government and the task force said that security at airports was belt and braces and that there was too much security at airports. Within days of that decision in Committee, somebody mortar-bombed Heathrow airport. I hope that the Government's view on that has changed now.
      When we discussed the changes to public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licensing, there was talk about changing the rules governing drivers' hours which would allow them to drive for longer. It is only in the past few days that we have seen, following the M2 coach crash, that the driver had exceeded his hours and the speedometer had not been properly checked. The regulations which were there already should have been enforced more rigorously. We do not need less regulation, but more.
      We get knee-jerk reactions. Following the fire in Scarborough, we are told that there will be a licensing system. That suggestion was rubbished when we were in Committee. Following the M2 disaster, we were told that there would be moves to stop coaches going into the fast lane. Again, any talk from the Opposition about the safety of HGVs and PSVs was rubbished in Committee. When we talked about the security of airports before the mortar-bombing of Heathrow, it was rubbished in Committee.
      It is the Government's hypocrisy that gets me. They say they will promise people safety when they know that people with vested interests have sat on the task forces. For example, the task force on construction was chaired by Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction, and included Derek Bernard Rimmer of Slough Estates and Dr. Margaret Lowe of Ove Arup. They all have vested interests and they will ensure that none of the measures are properly applied.
      I shall finish by mentioning an interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny observation by the National Association of Fire Officers. In some ways, it sums up what the Government are doing. On the front page of the document, it says that a bonfire of red tape may prove an unfortunate phrase when human life is at stake.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: Blessed are those who expect nothing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for they shall not be disappointed.
      I never really expected any sensible and informed speeches from Opposition Members, and my expectations have been amply fulfilled in the past hour or so. It is a great misfortune that we cannot debate serious issues in a rational and proportionate way. The Opposition do themselves no favours with the kind of speeches that we have heard this afternoon, not least from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). She is never inhibited by any connection with the facts, and declared that this country was the most dangerous place in Europe. On the contrary, the latest Health and Safety Commission annual report shows that expected—
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hamilton: I will in a moment, but first I will give the hon. Lady some statistics. She lacked any statistics in her speech and a combination of my speech and hers may advance the debate. The HSC annual report shows that expected overall fatal injury rates have dropped to the
      218
      lowest levels ever reported and now stand at 1.3 per 100,000 employees. Non-fatal injury rates for employees also fell slightly last year for the third successive year.
      The fatal injury rate is now less than one quarter of the rate in the early 1960s, less than one half of that in the 1970s, and 20 per cent. lower than that of the mid-1980s.
      Mr. Fatchett: The rate of accidents is important.
      Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman points out, that is the key factor. The rate of accidents per 100,000 employees has fallen also, I am delighted to confirm to him.
      Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
      Mr. Hamilton: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is about to contradict the facts.
      Ms Jackson: Not at all. Yet again, the Minister is referring to figures which have been achieved in the past. Our argument is that, if the Bill goes through, such figures will be an impossibility in the future.
      I believe that I did not say that this was the most dangerous place to work in Europe. I believe that I did say that, if the Government have their way, Britain will certainly become the most dangerous place in Europe in which to work.
      Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that the hon. Lady will discover when she has been here a little longer that, in this place, we are judged by what we have said, rather than by what we think we have said. That is sometimes very inconvenient.
      The assorted members of the national union of shroud-wavers, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists sitting on the Opposition benches will be rejected by the people of this country. Everybody who thinks about it for a moment recognises that, if we have regulations which impose unnecessary costs upon businesses, those costs will flow through. Ultimately, they must be paid for by the very people whom Opposition Members claim they want to protect and defend, and whose interests they seek to advance.
      Nobody with any sense takes the absolutist position that, on all matters concerning safety, we must do as much as we can without any consideration of costs to stamp out certain risks. They are all cases of balance. After all, if we were to take the view that we wanted to stamp out all road accidents, a simple way of doing so would be to ban all vehicles from using the roads. There would then be no accidents on the roads. But no sensible person takes that view. We all ultimately—consciously or subconsciously —make judgments about risks and we must bear in mind the costs that we are imposing upon society by the regulations that we introduce.
      Among the many fantasies produced by Opposition Members is that we are in some way going to abolish all fire regulations, or that we are to reduce them in way that will increase substantially the risks to the public. The Government have no intention of doing that, and of course it would be a stupid thing to aim to do. I must admit that even this Government are not infallible, and we have from time to time made mistakes. However, I have stated categorically that our aim in the reviews that we have set up is to identify areas of overlap and duplication and where there is a lack of clarity between the responsibilities of enforcement bodies.

      219
      We want recommendations on the ways of dealing with those areas and we wish to address the practicability of bringing all the policy responsibilities for fire safety together in a single department to improve the clarity of the regulations and the effectiveness of their enforcement.
      Mr. Galloway: Why were not the fire authorities and the fire service represented on the task force?
      Mr. Hamilton: The task force was appointed to give the business view to the Government. [Interruption.] Of course that was the intention. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members think that business—the employers of the people whom they claim to represent—should not have their view heard by the Government. Opposition Front-Bench Members who slink around the dining rooms of the City and industry attempting to make friends among industrialists might have some difficult questions to answer if that were not the case.
      Any sensible person knows that we must take into account the interests of industry, employees, professionals and the fire service. The views of business do not in any way require the Government to accept the recommendations, nor have we said that that would be the case. Having received that view, we have now instituted a wide review and an efficiency scrutiny of the areas of overlap and duplication. There are five members on the review team, as I mentioned earlier. I shall give everyone the names so that in future Opposition Members might not have the opportunity to scaremonger so much.
      Mr. Stewart Kidd is the director of the Fire Protection Association, a subsidiary of the Loss Prevention Council. It certainly has no vested interest in increasing losses from fires. It has every vested interest in ensuring that there is greater safety to reduce its losses. Mr. David Smith is the president of the Institute of Building Control. It does not sound to me as if he is likely to be a fire-breathing extremist of the kind that Opposition Members have fantasised about.
      Mr. Bill Yates works for Shell, a company that operates in the area of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would accuse that company of having the opinions of which his hon. Friends have spoken this evening. Mr. Alf Thompson is the chief officer of Durham fire service. Mr. Richard Saxon is a partner in the Building Design Partnership and, horror of horrors, a member of the construction deregulation task force.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Heppell: The Minister read out a list of names. I am fairly certain that that list was not on the original task force. Is the Minister talking about the one that was set up after complaints were made or the original one?
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has woken up, I am glad to hear. I have already said that the deregulation task force was put together to give us the business view. The Government were not obliged to accept its view. The Government have not yet taken any decisions on any of the issues that it raised, but we have set up the second review, which is designed to give us a balanced view of the issues that I have set out.
      So I am afraid that Opposition Members have been wasting their time and the time of the House in the past
      220
      hour. They have been firing their muskets up alleyways down which the enemy is not coming, as someone once said of a speech made by Winston Churchill in the House.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give the House a categorical undertaking that the responsibility for fire safety will not be transferred from the fire authorities?
      Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether it is the hon. Gentleman's view that reviews should be prejudged or that the Government should take decisions in advance of appointing them. That was an absurd and preposterous question to ask. We are happy to be judged on safety by our experience of 15 years in office.
      Since 1975 the Health and Safety Commission has repealed or modified some 350 pieces of old, outdated and detailed prescriptive legislation. They have been replaced with about 100 sets of modern regulations which focus on the goals to be achieved by employers. That is more flexible and practicable for all involved. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we need the Bill because the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 forbids us to repeal outdated and obsolete legislation by any means that are likely to be practicable. Consequently, it prevents us from doing in relation to pre-1974 legislation what we can already do in respect of post-1974 legislation.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he was not here for the debate and I see that many Members have come into the Chamber. They have probably come to hear my speech rather than Opposition Members' interventions. I think that it is more likely that they have come in expecting a vote to take place, and I know that I have already been speaking for too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On that note of unity, perhaps I should sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] By popular request. In that case, I can take a hint and I will sit down.
      Mr. Fatchett: If ever there was an argument for new clause 5, it was the Minister's speech. It was an appalling speech and one that the Minister will come to regret. We were dealing with serious issues and the Minister was not prepared to take them seriously. My hon. Friends were not scaremongering. They were raising serious issues and factual cases. The Minister could not even bother to reply to the points that they made.
      The most telling comment that the Minister made was his definition of a burden as a cost to business. He needs to understand that there is a balance that relates to employees, consumers and the general public. In the Scarborough fire case, there was a burden on a small business to bring the hotel up to acceptable and legitimate standards. The fact is that lives were lost and people were injured because that did not happen. That is the basis of the balance to which my hon. Friends have referred. It is a great shame that the Minister could not respond to those important points.
      It is also a great shame that the Minister did not recognise the fears that the task force working parties were set up to reflect interests, and in particular interests, that have backed the Conservative party and will get what they want from the Government's deregulation initiatives.

      221
      New clause 5 deals with important issues and the Government are sending one clear signal. Last Thursday at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to take tougher action following the Scarborough fire. The fact is that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State, Department of Employment are driven by an ideology that favours deregulated labour markets and a free-for-all for entrepreneurs without any protection for consumers and employees. We reject that outdated ideology. That is why I ask my hon. Friends not to give more power to Ministers but to protect the House and those outside by supporting new clause 5.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 283.

      Division No. 234]

      [7.35 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ainger, Nick

      Dafis, Cynog

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Allen, Graham

      Darling, Alistair

      Alton, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Eastham, Ken

      Beggs, Roy

      Enright, Derek

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Etherington, Bill

      Bell, Stuart

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Fisher, Mark

      Benton, Joe

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Berry, Roger

      Foulkes, George

      Betts, Clive

      Fraser, John

      Blair, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blunkett, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boyes, Roland

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Gapes, Mike

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      George, Bruce

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

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burden, Richard

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Byers, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Callaghan, Jim

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hall, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hardy, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      222

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ingram, Adam

      Parry, Robert

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Patchett, Terry

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pendry, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Prescott, John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Redmond, Martin

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rogers, Allan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rooney, Terry

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rowlands, Ted

      McFall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheerman, Barry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McMaster, Gordon

      Simpson, Alan

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Madden, Max

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

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahon, Alice

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Snape, Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Spellar, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Maxton, John

      Stevenson, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Tyler, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Milburn, Alan

      Wallace, James

      Miller, Andrew

      Walley, Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Wareing, Robert N

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Winnick, David

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wise, Audrey

      Mudie, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

      Olner, William

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bates, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ashby, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bendall, Vivian

      Atkins, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      223

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Booth, Hartley

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gorst, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Peter

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hendry, Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Cash, William

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Congdon, David

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cran, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

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

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knox, Sir David

      Dunn, Bob

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Eggar, Tim

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Elletson, Harold

      Legg, Barry

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lightbown, David

      Evennett, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Faber, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forman, Nigel

      Maclean, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, Sir David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mans, Keith

      French, Douglas

      Marlow, Tony

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gallie, Phil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      224

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Steen, Anthony

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stephen, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stern, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Streeter, Gary

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sumberg, David

      Needham, Richard

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sykes, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thomason, Roy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Page, Richard

      Thumham, Peter

      Paice, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

      Pawsey, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tredinnick, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Trend, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rathbone, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Richards, Rod

      Walden, George

      Riddick, Graham

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Watts, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Whitney, Ray

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Sims, Roger

      Wolfson, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      HANDLING OF REDUNDANCIES
      'No order shall be made under section 1 of this Act which includes any provision amending or repealing any provision of Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Procedure for handling redundancies) and "enactment" for the purposes of Chapter 1 of this Act shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Nigel Griffiths.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 7, in page 23, clause 27, leave out lines 14 to 21.
      No. 15, in page 109, schedule 14, leave out lines 13 to 17.
      No. 17, in page 2, line 43, clause 1, after (6)', insert'and section(Handling of redundancies) below'.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to recommend the new clause and the amendments for a number of reasons, not least because in the past 15 years workers have been left with precious few employment rights. The new clause and the amendments will ensure that what little protection they have is consolidated and extended.
      The new clause would prevent the Government: from amending or repealing any of the provisions in chapter II of part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 through a deregulation order under the Bill.
      Present legislation requires employers to consult recognised trade unions if they are contemplating large-scale redundancies. If 100 or more employees are to be dismissed in 90 days or less, consultations must take place at least 90 days in advance. If between 10 and 99 employees are to be dismissed in 30 days or less, under the present law, consultations must take place at least 30 days in advance. Failure to comply with the legislation can result in large protective awards. Employers are also required to notify the Secretary of State for Employment within equivalent periods if they are proposing to make 10 or more employees redundant.
      Chapter II of the 1992 Act provides some moderate protection to employees. There are four modest reasons for moving the new clause to ensure that that protection continues. Under the present legislation, the employer has to inform the union of the reasons for the redundancies, the numbers and descriptions of the employees involved, the proposed selection criteria and method of carrying out dismissals, with due regard to any agreed procedures, and the period within which they will take place.
      We want to ensure that those four provisions contained in present law are enshrined beyond the implementation of the Bill. They are essential to prevent a return to the Victorian days that we have heard about from the Conservatives. Gone are the days when employees had to touch their caps to employers or grovel for work and take whatever was handed out—or so we thought until we saw the Bill. This excellent new clause will ensure that employees at least have the right in law to be consulted and informed when redundancies are to take place.
      We know what would happen if such protection were not enshrined in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. In April, about 1,400 Swan Hunter workers lost their jobs and their colleagues took the shipyard's managers to court for failing to go through agreed procedures. They won substantial compensation settlements—many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Other large firms have gone into receivership—it has been common under this Government —for example, Ferranti and Leyland DAF, whose employees were dismissed at short notice and seemingly arbitrarily, in contravention of their legal rights. That comes as little surprise from the Conservative party, which as we know has gone soft on law and order.
      Workers are entitled to that protection and we are determined to ensure that it continues through this clause. That is why we want to write the clause on the face of the Bill so that no zealot Tory Minister can try to come through the back door of the House of Commons to remove such protection, under the guise of deregulation. It is very important for the new clause to be carried.
      The amendments touch on clause 27, which does two things. It removes workers' protection against unfair redundancy and allows selection for dismissal without any regard to customary procedures or even to procedures
      226
      agreed with workers and their trade unions. The Government have again fallen foul of the law. They have failed to adhere to laws which came from Europe and which they accepted.
      This year they have already been carpeted by an advisory ruling on 2 March in infraction proceedings that the European Commission brought against the United Kingdom for failing fully to implement laws safeguarding the rights of employees. If those laws do not touch on redundancy, they certainly touch on the rights of workers' representatives to be involved in consultations when a business changes hands and they entitle workers and their representatives to be consulted about collective redundancies. The Government never learn where the law is concerned.
      In those cases, the law did not relate to businesses but to worker protection. It is important to remove clause 27 from the Bill so that we can ensure that workers remain fully protected under section 59 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The Government have clearly overlooked important cases. During the past week, there was a case in which people were selected for redundancy for the most pernicious of reasons—age. Thirty workers over the age of 59 were weeded out and selected for redundancy, in contravention of any common decency and despite the value that we place on experience, if not in actual contravention of the law. In that case, the industrial tribunal found in favour of the workers.
      It is very sad that we do not have a law to protect workers and other people against age discrimination, as other countries do, but we saw what happened in the House last Friday. A law to protect disabled people was sabotaged by a Minister who first denied it and was then forced at last to tell part of the truth, although the whole truth has yet to come out. Given that they pick on the disabled, it would hardly be surprising if they stooped to picking on elderly people as well.
      The amendments and the new clause will ensure that protection for employees is not only enhanced in the Bill, but extended to those who serve under the Crown. It is vitally important that the rights for which workers have fought during many decades, indeed centuries, are not arbitrarily scrapped by the Government in a Bill which contains many other measures—as has been demonstrated here and in Committee—which do so much harm to the rights of consumers, workers and others. We shall certainly press the new clause and the amendments to a vote.
      8 pm
      Mr. Miller: During the early 1980s, when I had industrial responsibility for parts of south Liverpool, I found myself dealing on a daily basis with the pain of people being made redundant. The official notifications —form HR 1 from the Department of Employment—came in so thick and fast from employers that I could have papered my office walls with those terrible notices. It was a period of great industrial change in the area, with the loss of major employers.
      Nobody can doubt the pain that is associated with redundancy. Dr. Beal from Wiltshire carried out some important research, following the work by Harvey Brenner in the United States, illustrating beyond any doubt the connection between ill health and unemployment, based on

      227
      the closure of one factory. The pain associated with unemployment and redundancy must be considered in the context of these important amendments.
      The legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has described so well is effective, but it is weak, even now. If we allow the Government's position to prevail, we shall further weaken the legislation and take away from people who have customary arrangements within their workplaces the one small grain of comfort they have—that if redundancy occurs in a workplace where there is a customary procedure, at least that customary procedure will be followed and discussions will take place around it.
      In view of the number of people wishing to speak on this clause and others, I shall not repeat the arguments that were made in Committee, but it was clear that some Conservative Members did not understand the value of such customary procedures in the practical management of redundancy in any workplace. On that basis alone, simply to maintain the small amount of stability in what is undoubtedly, through proven medical research, a most painful period for any employee, I plead with the House to think most carefully and to support the amendments.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall be brief. Many of my constituents in Oldham are employed by Ferranti and I have seen the pain and anguish of people who have worked there nearly all their lives suddenly being made redundant at a few hours' notice. It is a terrible thing. However, we have to strike a balance.
      What do we want? Do we want to force receivers to carry on the head count for longer than they could reasonably be expected to do so because of human considerations, or do we want them to shed labour quickly and give confidence to customers and suppliers so that the components and materials keep flowing into the factory and the business is saved, as in the case of Leyland DAF? That company is now flourishing, but it had to drop labour rapidly.
      Mr. Miller: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the process by which labour was dropped in that company was in accordance with agreed procedures —and according to his own logic, the agreed procedures demonstrably worked.
      Mr. Dickens: The workers I have spoken to in Ferranti—
      Mr. Miller: I was referring to Leyland DAF.
      Mr. Dickens: Of course. The workers at Ferranti did not think that the procedures had been followed and it was painful for many of my constituents. I went to Ferranti and met the receivers, the trade unions and the management. A decision had to be made whether to save the company by some rapid action or to go through normal procedures—which sometimes take a long time, until no one would supply the company with components or materials and the entire company would fold with the loss of hundreds more jobs.
      I have listened carefully to the Opposition. There has to be a balance. If there are grievances, the tribunal system has been used quite successfully. We have to be extremely careful before adopting the Opposition amendments. At the
      228
      end of the day, we are looking at saving entire businesses so that our constituents can enjoy having those factories there, paying charges to the local authority and taxes and so on, so that we benefit from their existence. Although there is merit in what the Opposition say, for the reasons that I have given, we should not support the amendments.
      Mr. Galloway: I shall be brief so as to allow my colleagues a chance to speak, but we are dealing with a sensitive and potentially devastating issue in this clause —sudden and often unexpected redundancy. I have never had the experience of being made redundant, but as a Member of Parliament I have had to deal with it several times, not least in the case of Leyland DAF, which has a plant in my constituency.
      Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman has come damned close.
      Mr. Galloway: No, I have never come close to it, damned or otherwise. As a partisan jibe has been made, I shall say this. When a shiver of fear went along the Government Front Bench looking for a spine to run up after Thursday's election, no doubt a number of Conservative Members as well as Ministers had their minds concentrated on the issue of redundancy. They will no doubt be hoping for more than 90 days' notice of their impending demise as workers.
      We have all had the experience of small or large-scale redundancies. I was in the Committee corridor when the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) was assiduously—desperately, even—trying to deal with the consequences of the sudden huge redundancy at the London Rubber Company in his constituency. I could sense from the expression on his face the upset and dread which must have been present in the hearts of his constituents. We have all had that experience.
      In my own family, before the law laid down the 90-day requirement, I remember my father, having worked for 20 years at the National Cash Register company as a proud engineering worker, coming home crushed by the news that the factory was to make substantial lay-offs, and that he was one of those to be made redundant. We have all had that experience and we know how awesome the axe of sudden redundancy can be. The 90-day period of notice required under current law gives at least some opportunity to make some psychological adjustment, as well as for work force representatives and employers to argue across the table. When the blow ultimately falls at the end of that period, it is often not so bad as it might have been if the decision had been made at the beginning.
      The Albion plant of Leyland DAF in my constituency is one of the oldest manufacturing operations in the Clyde area. I was at the factory gates when men who had worked there—for 32 years in one case—were told at nine o'clock in the morning that they must clear their lockers and be out of the plant by midday. They were crushed, dejected, even tearful, and the pitiful experience of watching that happen in such a proud industrial plant was extremely harrowing for me as a constituency Member of Parliament.
      All that the new clause asks is that the Government do not use the device of a deregulation Bill to sweep away the little protection that workers have from such sudden and arbitrary redundancies. It is not asking too much of even this Government that they seriously consider that point.
      Mr. George Stevenson: The Government have made great play of the alleged reduction in unemployment, but every Member of the House knows that there is still a great fear of unemployment and the knock on the door that says, "You're out of a job. "
      The Government's proposal will make that fear much worse. It will hit morale and make people feel that the Government have embarked on a course which, step by step, will remove the protection that they have at the workplace. Serious though they are, we are not discussing health and safety at work or a regulation which may help to prevent a serious tragedy such as a fire. We are discussing some measure of protection for people who are to lose their livelihoods after decades of work, service, commitment and dedication.
      In those circumstances, I cannot for the life of me see how the Government can resist the new clause. If they really believe in the rights of individuals, what can be more basic than a provision that agreed procedures will be applied and proper notification given when an individual's livelihood and the welfare of his family is to be taken away? That individual may not find further employment. We all know that the prospects of people over 40 or 45 finding a job are extremely bleak.
      In reply to a debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister said that we should not scaremonger because the Government were not about to demolish all the necessary protections and regulations. In attempting to assuage our fears, he said that the Government were simply removing anything that overlapped, was unnecessary or smacked of duplication. Those were the justifications that he gave for the Bill. How in the world can proper notification and adherence to agreed procedures fit into those categories when we are considering people losing their livelihoods? I challenge the Minister to convince us that the new clause would contravene those objectives in any way.
      8.15 pm
      Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talk about the need for brevity in sacking people so that a phoenix could rise from the ashes would scarcely believe that, sadly, hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people had been made redundant in the past 15 years. If the hon. Gentleman argues that business and industry need to be able to sack people more quickly—I do not accept that argument—what has happened in the past 15 years provides plenty of evidence that, even with the present protections, it has not been difficult.
      Even on the Government's own criteria, the Minister's stated objectives for the Bill and the events of the past 15 years, the Government can put forward no reasonable objection to the new clause. Even if the Minister is not convinced about the practicalities and necessities, he must be convinced about the humanity of the new clause. When people are about to lose their jobs, they have the basic right to know about it, a right which exists under the protections provided by current law.
      Mr. Burden: The reason for the new clause is illustrated by clause 27. Many of us suspected that the Bill, like so many of the Government's other proposals, would be a cowboys' charter. Nowhere else is that more evident than in clause 27, which sanctions unreasonable behaviour by bad employers. Without clause 27, an employer was required simply to abide by agreements and procedures
      230
      which he had knowingly entered into with his work force. Even then, if an employer wanted to depart from those procedures, he could do so provided that he was prepared to test the matter at an industrial tribunal. The Government seem to believe that even that is too onerous for an employer. Interestingly, they do not adopt the same approach and standards on the rights of employers, but that is the logic behind clause 27.
      Despite the arguments which Opposition Members put forward in Committee, the Government said that they were not prepared to remove or amend the clause. That is why we need the new clause. If they say that it is okay for an employer selecting employees for redundancy to break the rules and depart from procedures which they knowingly entered into, why would it be unreasonable, according to the Government's logic, to expect an employer to abide by basic time limits? Why would it be unreasonable to expect an employer not to sack someone under the guise of redundancy, when the real reason is because his face does not fit, he has been troublesome, an active trade unionist or whatever?
      Under the first four clauses of the Bill, the Government could introduce legislation that would specify those factors, and the evidence in clause 27 is that they could well try precisely that, unless they are once again prepared to come to the House and say that their fine words about not wishing to remove necessary protection mean something.
      All we are asking for in the new clause is that basic rules of fairness apply on redundancy, selection, time limits, discussions and talking. For goodness' sake, all we are asking the Government to do is guarantee that they will not use the powers that they are taking to themselves under the Bill to sanction an employer who refuses to talk to his employees in that painful situation of redundancy, to which my hon. Friends have referred. What is so difficult about that? It seems to me that the only difficulty for the Government is their ideological dogma—they are not prepared to lay down any basic standards or rules if they apply to employees rather than employers.
      The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was wrong when he said that, if an employer departed from the rules on redundancy, the employee could always go to an industrial tribunal. Clause 27 will remove that power. An employer could sack someone and select someone for redundancy quite unreasonably, but if clause 27 stays on the face of the Bill, the employee, on the basis of redundancy legislation, could not take that complaint forward and would have to go through a different route. We had that argument in Committee.
      The Minister shook his head in response to what I said earlier, but I have a challenge for the Government. If he believes that what I have said is wrong, let him insert on the face of the Bill a clause, as we are suggesting, that says that Ministers and Conservative Members, or, indeed, hon. Members in any other part of the House, will not use the powers that the Bill will give them to take away redundancy procedures and standards that the House debated, discussed and arrived at, which are by no means as generous as those in many other parts of Europe, but which at least lay down some basic elements of protection.
      The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth mentioned Leyland DAF. I do not want to go into it in detail, but I feel quite strongly about it, coming from the midlands. The argument about Leyland DAF was not about

      231
      how the selections for redundancy took place. The reason why it got into difficulty needs to be traced back far before that.
      There are some arguments and lessons for the Government in the way in which they support manufacturing industry. What is relevant to the debate is the spectacle that one saw in Birmingham and elsewhere of brown paper envelopes being given out, with virtually a moment's notice, to say, "You are selected for redundancy," and "You are not." That is not a civilised way to go about things.
      Unfortunately, our new clause will not put that one right, but it will at least lay down the basic principles of fairness of discussion of time limits, which existing legislation provides. I hope that even this Government will not find it too difficult to uphold those principles by accepting the new clause.
      Dr. Tony Wright: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke movingly about his own experience and that of his father, who, he said, had been crushed by redundancy. Although I wanted to say something about the constitutional importance of the measure, my hon. Friend's speech took me back to think of my own family experience.
      My father came out of the RAF after the war—he had stayed in it for a while—then had a job at Stewart and Lloyds steel works in Corby. He would cycle 10 miles there and 10 miles back. He did shift work around the clock. One day, in the early 1960s, he was told that he was not wanted any more—just like that. Not only had his job finished, but in a sense his life. It was before the Labour Government of the 1960s had brought in the redundancy payments provisions, so there were no payments, either.
      I thought that we had moved on, not just in a party sense but a social and political sense. I thought that, in terms of developing basic protections for workers, we had moved from one era into a different kind, as was said in the debate on the previous new clause, in health and safety, too. I thought that there had been a kind of growth, a cumulative process, that we had added on, not taken away.
      The Government have changed all that. They said that we are not all together on that any more, that we are not all pulling together to improve standards, increase protections and guarantee securities. We have started a new process of chipping away, of erosion, of creating insecurities where previously there were securities. We do not have the time now, but I warn the Government that that will produce consequences for society of which they have the merest inkling at the moment.
      Let me focus on the new clause, because it tests the good faith of the Government. It is asking, as the previous one did, whether the Government are prepared to set any parameters around the order-making power that is being claimed for Ministers in the Bill. Is everything possible, or are there parameters? Are some things no-go areas? I put it like that because in Committee we put various outrageous suggestions to the Minister about what those order-making powers might be used for. On the whole, his response was one of relish, that of course he could use them for that. The clause at least puts some parameters of decency around the Bill.
      232
      Let us say that the order-making powers that are being claimed in the first part of the Bill should not be against some of the things that define the kind of society that we were. One of those parameters is how we treat people when they are made redundant—a fairly basic parameter of decency. Let us say that, if the Government might want —perhaps they do—to erode those provisions, they should at least come to the House with primary legislation and argue it through. They should have to get that legislation through the House.
      Instead, they are saying that they want an order-making power to repeal any legislation that they want to repeal, simply on some kind of spurious test of protection and burden. If the Government and the House are allowed to do that, they will be changing their mind not only about that but about how legislation should happen. That is the crucial point.
      That is why I said just now that the new clause is a test of good faith. The test is to say on the face of the Bill that there are parameters beyond which the order-making power will not be used. In the case of the new clause, one of those parameters relates to the treatment of people when they are made redundant. If they fail that test, the conclusion will be of the direst kind. It will be conspicuous and the one that everybody who looks at our proceedings will draw.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: The debate has been in marked contrast to the previous one. It has been an excellent debate, and the speeches have, at times, been very moving. They were certainly eloquent and, in all cases, very sincere. I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House on this occasion, because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). Hon. Members have done themselves credit. Even so, the fears of Opposition Members are misplaced, for reasons that I shall explain.
      The proposal in new clause 6 relates to procedures for redundancies. I agree that this is a hugely significant sector involving vital elements of protection, and I well understand the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. However, as I have made clear many times, the deregulation order-making power that we seek could be used if, in a particular case, its use would not remove any necessary protection.
      I know that we debated the precise meaning of that phrase in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat what I said then. I hope, however, that the circumstances in which the order-making power ought to be used will be clear to hon. Members from a combination of the measures that appear on the face of the Bill—in respect of which the powers do not apply—the illustrative list of measures that we have published separately from the Bill, to which they would apply, and the assurances that I have given in previous debates. There are further protections, with which I shall deal in a moment.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Stevenson: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening, as I was not a member of the Standing Committee. When he refers to "necessary protection" in the context of the new clause, is he telling us that protection under the relevant sections of the Act referred to is a necessary protection?
      Mr. Hamilton: It clearly could be, but I cannot commit myself without examining a specific case.
      Let me proceed to the second limb of my argument, which concerns a separate constitutional protection that ought to please hon. Members. We have built in a variety of other safeguards to ensure that use of the power could not be abused. First, consultation is required with representatives of those likely to be substantially affected. A detailed memorandum must then be submitted to Parliament, and an additional period is provided for parliamentary scrutiny, during which the special deregulation committee will consider the proposals—line by line, if appropriate. We shall debate those matters tomorrow night when we discuss the report of the Procedure Committee.
      Even if, following those stages, the Government present an order under the power, it will have to be passed under the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that it will require the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. Hon. Members will have extensive opportunities to participate in debate. Indeed, in some respects the scrutiny procedures recommended by the Procedure Committee would frequently offer more practical opportunities to debate the proposals than are available when we debate primary legislation.
      All hon. Members will recall occasions when vast rafts of amendments have been tabled—especially on Report —and there is very little discussion of them because it is late at night and everyone is champing at the bit to go home. In my experience, the procedures laid down as constitutional protections in the passing of Bills are far from being as effective as Opposition Members like to think. I prefer to rest my case on what I consider to be extensive protections.
      Amendments Nos. 7, 13 and 15 to clause 27 also seem to be based on a misapprehension. Opposition Members appear mistakenly to believe that the clause will remove fundamental protection from those facing redundancy. They have described circumstances in which employees would be left at the mercy and whim of employers. As I said in Committee, that will not happen. Employees will remain protected against unfair treatment and employers will still be free to reach agreements with trade unions over redundancy procedures if they so wish. The clause simply removes out-of-date and unnecessary legislation whose principal effect is to prevent employers who have to make redundancies from taking the most sensible action to meet the needs of their business and its employees.
      I cannot believe that Opposition Members would consider it preferable for an employer who thought it vital to the viability of his business for him to select one employee rather than another to be precluded from doing so by customary rules, with the result that the business foundered and all the employees lost their jobs. The removal of that outdated requirement was suggested by the deregulation task forces, which pointed out that the requirements of section 59(1)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 were an inflexible legacy of times now past, hampering employers in selecting for redundancy according to their modern business needs. The requirements also lead to uncertainty, while doing little to ensure that the individual concerned was selected fairly.
      Those inflexible arrangements persist because of voluntary agreements that employers may have reached with trade unions many years ago about redundancy selection procedures. Such agreements—a common one
      234
      being to select on a "last in, first out" basis—may be entirely inappropriate to current circumstances. As I have said, the very viability of a business might well depend on the skills of its work force, which do not necessarily equate to long service. I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about agism: constituency cases that I handle from time to time suggest that it operates in pernicious way. The points that he made, however, were rather wide of the subject that we are debating.
      When the agreements to which I have referred have been entered into voluntarily, employers may find that, if they attempt to withdraw from them and introduce alternative selection methods, they fall foul of the statutory requirement to follow "customary arrangements". They may have little certainty that an industrial tribunal would agree that their business needs constituted a special reason justifying such action. Such employers could find themselves compelled to make redundant the very workers whom they most need, just at the time when they most need them. Clearly it is in no one's interests for employers faced with no alternative but to make redundancies to be hampered by additional difficulties presented by the provisions.
      It is important to understand that removal of the special requirement will not leave employees unprotected. That leads me to the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The ordinary unfair dismissal provisions, on which employees would still be able to rely, require employers to follow fair procedures. In deciding what is a fair procedure, the tribunal will take into account all the circumstances of the case.
      Mr. Miller: Does not the statute as currently written have a rider requiring the employer to take a series of steps having due regard to the circumstances? Does the Minister agree that, in the exceptional cases that he has described —let us say that a major order collapses and there is urgent pressure on the business—an employer can have due regard to the circumstances and carry out a redundancy exercise without using the legislation?
      Mr. Hamilton: I said a moment ago that an uncertainty was involved in the current arrangement, which would not necessarily produce the result that the hon. Gentleman predicts. Among other matters, however, the tribunal will consider whether the ACAS code of practice has been followed. Employers will normally need to warn employees and consult them about the proposals. They will be expected to consider whether redeployment would be a viable alternative, and will need to have a fair basis for selecting those redeployed. Furthermore, if employees' individual contractual rights are not adhered to, the tribunal will want to be satisfied that that is justified.
      I believe that the protections about which Opposition Members are so concerned would survive, but in a form that would not prejudice the viability of a business in the circumstances that I have described. The aim of our proposal is to introduce greater flexibility and to enable a business to survive when it might otherwise not do so, thus maximising the number of jobs that might be saved. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made much of that in his speech.
      Our proposal does not give employers carte blanche to act indiscriminately, it does not leave employees unprotected against unfair treatment, it does not tear up

      235
      voluntary agreements that both sides voluntarily wish to retain and it does not affect any contractual arrangements that an employer may have with his individual employees. Hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that, in the end, it may not do very much, but what it does do at the margin—I emphasise this—is provide a vital extra measure of flexibility in an already difficult employment situation in order to save the business.
      In the past few years, we have lived through a pretty terrible recession and I should have thought that all hon. Members would wish to do as much as possible to ensure that, should such circumstances ever occur again, the maximum number of businesses should have the maximum amount of flexibility to save the maximum number of jobs. I rest my case on that explanation and commend the Government's proposals to the House. If the Opposition press the new clause to a vote, I hope that my hon. Friends will resist it.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has raised more concerns about employment issues in his summing up than were raised during a whole Committee sitting. In Committee we did not have the Government's response to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure which covered the scrutiny of deregulation orders to which the Minister has just referred. If anything was going to give us cause for concern, it would be their response to the 17 recommendations made in that report. The Government felt able to accept only five unreservedly, and their reservations make worrying reading.
      The Select Committee suggested:
      "if the Deregulation Committee reports that the order-making power should not be used in respect of a specific deregulation proposal, no … order should be laid before the House in respect of that proposal."
      I do not have to remind the House that the Government would form the majority on the committee and if a deregulation measure were to be opposed, some of the individuals forming part of that majority would have to agree with the Opposition. The decision could be unanimous, but that, in any case, would mean taking a determined stance against a foolish measure introduced by the Government. What is the Government's response? They state:
      "The Government has made it clear that an adverse recommendation from the Deregulation Committee in respect of the deregulation proposal would be treated by Ministers with the utmost seriousness."
      We all know what that means—it will be ignored.
      Let us consider another example, which appears in paragraph 40 of the Government's response. The Select Committee had recommended that, for serious deregulation matters, Ministers could be summoned before the deregulation committee. The Government responded by saying that that would be "unprecedented", so the safeguards that the Minister mentioned specifically in his defence of the Government's position are not in the very document that he hoped to use to bolster his case.
      Some powerful arguments were advanced by hon. Members other than the Minister and myself, and none was more powerful than that of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). His contribution was the most persuasive that he has made in the House while I have been here. He made clear his concerns for employees in his constituency and they were
      236
      graphically illustrated by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). I think that I am quoting the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth correctly when I say that he believes that the tribunal system has been successful. Indeed, he conceded the merits of the case that we had advanced.
      My fear is that, without the protection that we seek to incorporate in the Bill, any future deregulation could be put before the committee and, even if the committee unanimously rejected the Government's proposals, the Minister and his successor could ignore that fact. We wish to strike out clause 27 and introduce new clause 6 in order to ensure that proper protection for workers is guaranteed in the future, beyond the life of this Minister and this Government.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 276.

      Division No. 235]

      [8.45 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cummings, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashton, Joe

      Davidson, Ian

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Battle, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dixon, Don

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dobson, Frank

      Beggs, Roy

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dowd, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Enright, Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Berry, Roger

      Fatchett, Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Blair, Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      Blunkett, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Boyes, Roland

      Foulkes, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Fraser, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fyfe, Maria

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

      Galbraith, Sam

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Godsiff, Roger

      Canavan, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cann, Jamie

      Graham, Thomas

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hain, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Mike

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Hardy, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Doug

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hoey, Kate

      Cousins, Jim

      Home Robertson, John

      237

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Olner, William

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hoyle, Doug

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hutton, John

      Pope, Greg

      Ingram, Adam

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Janner, Greville

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Redmond, Martin

      Jowell, Tessa

      Reid, Dr John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Keen, Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooney, Terry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Ian

      Simpson, Alan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKelvey, William

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

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Snape, Peter

      McMaster, Gordon

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Madden, Max

      Spellar, John

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mahon, Alice

      Stevenson, George

      Mandelson, Peter

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marek, Dr John

      Straw, Jack

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Tyler, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Michael, Alun

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Walley, Joan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Milburn, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Miller, Andrew

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wilson, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Winnick, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Wise, Audrey

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mudie, George

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Mr. Alan Meale.

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alexander, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      238

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Gallie, Phil

      Baldry, Tony

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Garnier, Edward

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gorst, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boswell, Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bowis, John

      Hague, William

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Harris, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burt, Alistair

      Heald, Oliver

      Butcher, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Horam, John

      Cash, William

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Churchill, Mr

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Key, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

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

      Dicks, Terry

      Knox, Sir David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dover, Den

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Duncan, Alan

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Legg, Barry

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Faber, David

      Luff, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Madel, Sir David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      239

      Merchant, Piers

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Stephen, Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Streeter, Gary

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sumberg, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sweeney, Walter

      Needham, Richard

      Sykes, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thomason, Roy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thumham, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Paice, James

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Tracey, Richard

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Trend, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Trimble, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trotter, Neville

      Pickles, Eric

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walden, George

      Richards, Rod

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Riddick, Graham

      Waller, Gary

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Watts, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Whitney, Ray

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Sackville, Tom

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Sims, Roger

      Wolfson, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr.Timothy Kirkhope.

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 9

      APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MARKETS (No. 3)
      '(1) Where a person proposes to set up a commercial market within the relevant area which but for the provisions of section 22(1) above would constitute a disturbance of the right of market of a local authority to which subsection 22(2) above applies, the person proposing to set up the market shall apply to that local authority for approval of the setting up of that market.
      (2) Where an application for the grant or renewal of approval has been made under subsection (1) above to a local authority, the local authority shall—

      (a) give or renew that approval subject to such reasonable conditions as the local authority think fit; or

      (b) refuse to give that approval, provided that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

      (3) A grant or renewal of approval under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is granted or such other longer period as the local authority giving or renewing the approval may determine.
      240
      (4) The local authority may charge a reasonable fee in respect of an application for the grant or renewal of an approval under subsection (2) above and different fees may be charged for different classes, sizes and locations of market.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision as to approvals and regulation in relation to the setting up of rival commercial markets.
      (6) A person who sets up a rival commercial market within the relevant area, which but for the provisions of section 22(1) above would constitute a disturbance of a right of market to which section 22(2) above applies without approval of the setting up of that market having been given or as the case may be renewed under subsection (2) above, or who carries on such a market in breach of any conditions attached to the grant or renewal of an approval, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      (7) In this section, "local authority", "market" and "right of market", have the same meaning as in section 22 above and "commercial market" means a market other than a market—

      (a) which is a temporary market within the meaning of section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and

      (b) the proceeds of which are to be applied solely or principally for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes, and

      "the relevant area" means the area of the local authority in whom the right of market is vested.'.—[Sir Michael Neubert.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Michael Neubert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 51, in clause 22, page 20, leave out lines 24 to 40.
      No. 48, in page 20, line 27, after 'right', insert
      'provided that the operator of the rival market makes payment to the owner of the right of market of an amount calculated on such basis as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order'.
      No. 53, in page 20, line 27, after 'right', insert
      'provided that the rival market is set up outside the relevant area'.
      No. 59, in page 20, line 27, at end insert
      'but without prejudice to the requirement for that market to be approved under section (Approval of certain markets (No. 3)) below.'.
      No. 60, in page 20, line 32, leave out from 'above' to end of line 33 and insert
      'and section (Approval of certain markets (No. 3)) below the references to setting up a rival market or a commercial market include continuing to hold such a market.'.
      No. 55, in page 20, line 33, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument and after consultation with interested bodies including, in particular, bodies representing the interests of market operators and market traders, make such provision with regard to the licensing of market operators and the licensing of market traders as he may think expedient in consequence of the operation of this section.
      (3B) No order shall be made under subsection (3A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      No. 47, in page 20, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert "local authority" has the same meaning as in section 61 of the Food Act 1984'.
      No. 54, in page 20, line 39, after 'fair', insert
      "the relevant area", means the area of the local authority in whom the right of market is vested.'.
      No. 6, in clause 23, page 20, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 21.
      No. 52, in page 21, in clause 24, leave out lines 19 to 25.

      241
      No. 57, in page 21, line 21, after 'effect', insert
      'save in its application to a livestock or wholesale market.'.
      No. 58, in page 21, line 25, after 'effect', insert
      'save in their application to a livestock or wholesale market'.
      Sir Michael Neubert: My interest in the subject of the new clause and amendments is twofold. First, there is Romford market, in my constituency, which has been established for nearly 750 years. It is the heart of the town and the fountainhead of its prosperity. The first connection with Romford that I can remember, long before being selected as candidate for the constituency 25 years ago last month, was when my grandmother took me on the bus to see the cattle in the market. There have not been cattle there since 1959, but I intend to return to the subject of livestock later.
      9 pm
      My second interest lies in the fact that I am one of a panel of parliamentary advisers to the National Market Traders Federation, which represents the 40,000 or so individual stallholders whose livelihoods are at stake. That risk, together with all the other factors that represent the public interest, must be taken into account.
      I do not often find myself out of line with the Government, but on this occasion I am, and must be. I certainly oppose clauses 22, 23 and 24, so it follows that I support amendments Nos. 51 and 52, in my name, which would delete clauses 22 and 24. I also support amendment No. 6, which would delete clause 23, and which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) before I could get to the Table Office.
      I am supported in my views by the Campaign for Quality Markets, which consists of a whole list of organisations. At the head of the list is the National Association of British Market Authorities, supported by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Market Officers, the Manorial Society of Great Britain, the National Market Traders Federation and the Showmen's Guild.
      That is a formidable array of opponents for the Government to take on, and one wonders why they are doing it. As recently as March 1991 a letter from the Department of the Environment to the secretary of the National Association of British Market Authorities—NABMA—acknowledged that there had been
      "very few complaints about market rights, and that in 1987–88 the government had reviewed the system."
      At that time, it had been concluded that franchised market rights could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation. Taking into account the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in United Kingdom trading activities, and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition.
      However, two or three years later the Government are changing tack. One wonders why. The rights in question are known to have existed for centuries. It is easy to see why they might provoke attention. The concept of a market as having an exclusive area within a radius of six and two thirds miles, within which no rival market may start without permission, and without paying compensation, is of course archaic. Indeed, it is medieval in origin.
      242
      For the benefit of those who are not cognoscenti in such matters, let me explain that in the middle ages 20 miles was considered to be the distance covered by a journeyman in a day. The day was divided into three parts—six and two thirds miles to travel to the market, one third of the day —equivalent to another six and two thirds miles—at the market, and another six and two thirds miles back. That is the reason for the restrictions.
      One has to ask, given that that right has existed for hundreds of years, why it has never been challenged by an ambitious, thrusting Minister. Why has no aspiring Asquith, a budding Baldwin, or even an up-and-coming Churchill thought fit to make his fame and fortune by challenging that archaic and medieval right? If one examines the issue, the answer is that, although it may seem, like the conventions of the House, to be a little outdated, it is an effective means of control of markets, and it has ensured that markets have prospered in towns up and down the country. That is why I seek to defend the status quo. On balance, the advantages and the public interest lie in retaining it rather than abolishing it.
      Mr. David Nicholson: Would my hon. Friend tell the House whether there is evidence that bodies wanting to run rival or competitive markets have been disadvantaged by the existing situation? On Friday, when I had a meeting with my local authority in Taunton Deane, I put that question to it and was told that nobody had applied to hold a rival or competitive market, but that there was the constant danger of fly-by-night traders—here today and gone tomorrow—and that they were the bane, not only of health and safety, environmental health, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue officers, but of the police.
      Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention, because I was about to ask what evidence there was to justify the change of tack. We had a period of consultation last summer, in which almost 3,000 representations were received—10 to one against the Government's proposals. None the less, the Government decided to go ahead with the proposition. That does not lend encouragement to consultation or, certainly, does not engender confidence in consultation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asks what other evidence exists. The only evidence I have is of an enterprise called In Shops, which has 57 stores in which it operates markets under licence. It has a multi-million pound turnover and, as far as I can see, is doing very nicely thank you with the law as it is. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will forgive me the comparison, but it seems that In Shops wants to acquire the same dominant position in markets as Sainsbury plc has in supermarket retailing.
      If the Government want to make a change, why make it now? My understanding of the public's opinion is that the change is being introduced just at a time when they are becoming increasingly concerned about the proliferation of fly-by-night markets and, especially, car boot sales. Some hon. Members in the Chamber may still believe car boot sales to be charity fairs in people's back gardens. I can tell my hon. Friends that they are now big business. It is not simply distressed stately home owners who find the need to stage car boots sales, but, in the midlands, one can have as many as 15,000 people attending such markets and buying goods that are obviously not the contents of somebody's

      243
      home, but are simply stock taken in to sell at those unlicensed markets, which can start up anywhere—in a farmer's field or where they will.
      Mr. Anthony Steen: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest, but will he tell me whether the car boot sale is the kind of sale in which he would expect to find second-hand filing cabinets—without the anti-tilt mechanism—such as those, as we all know, the House is getting rid of in their hundreds, if not thousands, to abide by a regulation which is not mandatory and which will cost the taxpayer tens of thousand of pounds?
      Sir Michael Neubert: It is one of my greatest concerns that second-hand House of Commons filing cabinets may find their way into car boot sales, be purchased at a knock-down price, taken into the home of some unsuspecting person and fall over on an innocent child or several innocent children in circumstances that I dare not envisage. Certainly the sale of stolen property is now, very often, facilitated by car boot sales. That is why the Association of Chief Police Officers is also opposed to the Government's proposal to remove all restrictions.
      Why, having decided to make the change, should the Government decide to make the change in this way? I regret that I find myself at odds with the Government here. It is not the first time that that has been the case, and certainly not in relation to market rights. For two years, both in and out of government, I successfully frustrated the passage of a private Bill, the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, which sought, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to undermine the Romford market charter.
      Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend will recognise that there are markets that are governed by the statute of market ouvert. The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill, which has come from another place, seeks to repeal 800 years of that statute. Does my hon. Friend believe that the repeal of the statute will expose those markets to competition and that rival markets will be set up? The market ouvert statute provides for certain conditions for the sale of goods. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?
      Sir Michael Neubert: It is difficult to comment without the necessary background and briefing. Although, with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), I am a member of the Committee which considered the matter this morning, I am in ignorance of which markets have market ouvert rights and which would be affected. However, my hon. Friend raises a matter that might apply to the whole question of markets. The right of market ouvert is as ancient as, if not more ancient than, the rights I am discussing now in relation to the new clause. There is a degree of incoherence and inconsistency in the proposals.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill and he said that he had played a role in successfully frustrating it. Conservative Redbridge council spent £176,000 in preparing the legal work and promoting the Bill, only to have it blocked in the House. The council then tried to reintroduce the Bill. It is now paying £4,000 a year to the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Havering for a desolate site underneath a flyover, which has no stall in operation, although there is a sign in the middle of Ilford which says, "Redbridge market". If one follows the sign,
      244
      one sees nothing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an indictment of the Conservative council which has just been defeated in Redbridge?
      Sir Michael Neubert: Wittingly or not, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) has supported my case, both in what I have said earlier and in what I shall say later, if he allows me to reach that point. There is an excess of market capacity, which makes this proposal especially serious for those who have established markets.
      The proposal runs counter to recent guidance from the Department of the Environment on out-of-town shopping centres. We are at last realising that such centres drain trade from the centre of towns, disembowelling towns and villages and leaving them empty, with shutters up. To allow markets to start up anywhere within the periphery of a town runs counter to that realisation because it would have exactly the effect that the Government are now concerned to limit by their guidance to planning authorities.
      The proposal excludes the private owners of market charters. If the argument is that market charter rights and exclusive franchises limit competition, how can it be justifiable to allow those rights to continue in private hands but not in the hands of local authorities? There is some inconsistency there, I should have thought.
      A further inconsistency is that the proposal apparently excludes Covent Garden. Covent Garden has protection for a mile around its market by virtue of the Covent Garden Market Act 1966; that protection would remain. There is also the proposition that there should be no compensation. That presumably is the reason for sparing privately owned markets from the proposal. It seems open to challenge that local authorities should not be compensated for the loss of their rights; some of them have paid heavily for those rights in years gone by. Expropriation without compensation seems to me, as a non-lawyer, to be a denial of natural justice.
      Surely there is also an unseen cost to the Treasury and taxpayers. If local authorities currently derive benefitincome—from the holding of such markets, and if markets are to be affected by the new competition which will be introduced by the proposal, surely there will be a shortfall that will need to be made up by either the council tax payer or the general taxpayer in support grant. I wonder whether the Treasury has noticed that.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: I supported the hon. Gentleman when he opposed the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. Many local authorities have modernised their town centres. One of the areas in which there has been great investment in many cases is that of new open-air and indoor markets, and they will suffer severe financial loss if the problem that he has highlighted is not addressed seriously.
      9.15 pm
      Sir Michael Neubert: Investment is also a consideration.
      I shall mention one further feature of the proposals—the abolition of byelaw powers. Apparently, it is only those that refer to markets, not those that are generally available. My own London borough of Havering used the powers as recently as 1989. That is especially important with regard to livestock or wholesale markets where the clearing of

      245
      passageways, the conduct of buyers, hygiene matters and general management are often the subject of byelaws which are necessary.
      What my new clause and the amendments associated with it seek to do is to provide counter-proposals, which I hope the Government will be prepared to consider. I shall summarise my proposals as follows. Control would be limited not to the six-and-two-thirds miles radius but to that part which is in the administrative area of the relevant local authority. There would be a special case needed for the City of London because its principal markets—Billingsgate, Spitalfields and Smithfield—are outside the square mile. That would remove the vexatious question of one local authority having jurisdiction over a market in another local authority area. Control would be by means of approval; it is not to be unreasonably withheld and not at an unreasonable fee for the application. Markets solely or principally—I am sure that this will reassure my hon. Friends—for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes would not require that approval; and byelaws would be retained as necessary.
      To sum up, that alternative approach would be better than removing centuries-old safeguards and putting nothing in their place. I trust that the Government will think again. Just as tower blocks are monuments to the architecture of the 1960s, empty shops, empty stalls and empty marketplaces could be the consequence of mistaken planning policies. This could be another mistaken judgment. The Government should recognise charter markets for what they are—the heart of communities in towns throughout the country. Markets need to thrive and prosper. They deserve better by the Bill.
      Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the new clause of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and the consequential amendments. For those of us who served on the Standing Committee, may I say that we wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment about the interest in this issue and the importance of markets to many communities up and down the country. Markets are a cherished part of local communities and an important part of local economic activity.
      I agree almost wholly with the hon. Gentleman in asking how the Government have got themselves into the situation in which they now find themselves, because it seems that there is little support for the proposals in the Bill. If there were a straw poll of public opinion or, indeed, in terms of the consultation process, it is abundantly clear that virtually everyone would be against the Government's proposals.
      The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to take us back to the consultation process. The result of that process was a 10:1 vote against the proposals. The hon. Gentleman argued that there were particular interests. There were some keen interests which were represented by local communities, consumers and those with legitimate market trading interests. Those people took the initiative to write in. It is sometimes easy for Ministers to dismiss a consultation process if it does not come up with the right result for Ministers, but the hon. Member for Romford is absolutely correct in saying that there will be no faith in the consultation process if Ministers simply dismiss it and go ahead with their own proposals.
      In the Standing Committee, the Opposition tabled a new clause which we thought would provide a way forward and which would deal with the concerns on the issue. The new
      246
      clause would have given licensing powers to local authorities which they could not use unreasonably. Those powers were designed to protect legitimate traders, small business interests and the rights of consumers. Unfortunately, it was rejected in Committee, but it seems to me—I say this to my hon. Friends—that what the hon. Gentleman is aiming for with new clause 9 is extremely close to our objectives in the new clause which was discussed in Standing Committee.
      There is a wide acceptance that there is a need to modernise the existing law, and I have not spoken to any local authority representative who does not recognise that. However, they also recognise that there are legitimate interests which must be protected. What the Government have done with the clauses which currently stand on the face of the Bill is to throw out those legitimate interests. There are genuine and deep concerns among market traders who have run businesses for many years. They feel that their interests will be undermined by people who will not maintain the same standards and who will not employ the same consumer protection.
      There are consumer interests. We all know about the proliferation of car boot sales, and what is happening in relation to them. An article in The Times last August described what happened when a journalist went to look at a car boot sale which took place not far from the hon. Member for Romford's constituency. The organisers said that all that they had done was to pick up goods from individual households which were trying to clear items which were no longer needed and which then could be sold off at a cheap price. The reporter said that it was quite surprising to see one household selling more than a dozen exercise bicycles at £5 a time. There seemed to be some doubt about the interests of one family or of their legitimate ownership of the exercise bicycles.
      There are real problems which must be sorted out in terms of protecting the public at car boot sales. There is a need to modernise, but also to recognise the legitimate interests which exist, and that is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's new clause.
      What is the way forward? I suggest to the Government that the way forward is to start again and, this time, to listen and get it right. They must modernise the law and protect legitimate interests. They must withdraw the existing clauses from the Bill, and listen to what the opposition have had to say—not just the Opposition in this place, but the opposition throughout the country. They must recognise the deep community interests, and they must talk to the parties who have legitimate concerns.
      I know that local authorities are prepared to talk to the Government to come up with a sensible and modernised law which will meet all requirements. The Government must get away from their ideological drive which says that deregulation is the only way forward. There are interests which need to be balanced, and good government and good administration are about balancing those interests. The Opposition will co-operate as far as possible if the Government withdraw the existing clauses from the face of Bill. We will work with them to come up with a new, sensible and modernised law which will protect all of the interests that the hon. Member for Romford mentioned in his speech.
      I shall finish with what may be my only partisan point. I have a letter from a market trader, who is a constituent of the Minister for Corporate Affairs. This person wrote to me

      247
      suggesting that clauses 21, 22 and 23—as they then were —of the Bill should be taken out and scrapped. He said in the final paragraph:
      "The only way to secure my vote at the next election is if you ensure that these proposals are thrown out immediately."
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Oh, dear.
      Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, dear." I should have thought that it was in the interests of Conservative Members to listen to that. Votes and support are rather limited. Market traders throughout the country would welcome the changes that we are talking about.
      Dame Jill Knight: There was some disagreement among market traders about that particular statement. I think that I speak for hon. Members from all parties when I say that we are not much impressed by blackmail. We are impressed by good arguments.
      Mr. Fatchett: I would hardly call it blackmail. We are offering to support a modernised approach and a modernised law. That is the way to make progress. We are offering that co-operation.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: The point about the threat that was made in the letter is that it shows that the campaign has been highly orchestrated. I happen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir Michael Neubert) because I wish to see changes to the Bill, for good reasons. However, the thing that almost made me decide not to support the amendment was people using in 20 or 30 letters that I have received exactly the same phrase. It was taken straight off the typescript that was issued by an organisation. Lobbying in that way is surely not the way to conduct a campaign.
      Mr. Fatchett: It is probably a basic rule of democracy that our constituents have a right to say that they will not vote for us in a future election. Sometimes that is reflected in the ballot box. They have that right and they have expressed it. As Members of Parliament, we all know that there are organised campaigns. Good luck to people. That is part of an essential, vibrant democracy. People have expressed their views. Many communities up and down the country have expressed their views.
      I repeat that the Government should withdraw the clauses. Let us start again, take the clauses out of the Bill and have a proper, modern perspective on the law.
      Mr. Sainsbury: It gives me particular pleasure to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his powerful and eloquent defence of his historic market, which is almost 750 years old, and what he described as centuries-old safeguards. My hon. Friend and I started a period of silence together in the House in 1983 when we became members of that important organisation, the Whips Office. The House will be aware of what it missed during the period when my hon. Friend had to be silent except when moving those important motions that brought our proceedings to an end.
      I remind the House that we passed what are now clauses 22 to 24 in Committee. However, we have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed and the points that have been put to us on the measure, most forcefully and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member
      248
      for Romford, but also by several other hon. Members and other interested parties, including many market traders across the country.
      In the past few days we have given particular consideration to the proposals for reform which have been suggested by the National Association of British Market Authorities, supported, as my hon. Friend said, by several other distinguished organisations. I should like to stress that it has never been the Government's intention to remove the ability of authorities to run markets. However, I recognise that fears have been expressed that removal of market franchise rights would seriously weaken the ability of local authorities to control temporary markets such as car boot sales.
      Fears have also been expressed that there would be a real threat to some city centres—a threat which has already been reflected in tonight's debate—if those rights were entirely removed. We have had detailed discussions with interested parties about those fears.
      We remain very much of the opinion that the present untrammelled rights of authorities cannot be justified. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that there is a need to modernise the law. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about doing that. However, we also recognise the strength of concern that has been expressed. We now believe that the right approach is to withdraw clauses 22, 23 and 24 and discuss further with all interested parties how best to remove the adverse effects of market franchise monopoly rights. We hope then to bring forward amendments, on an agreed basis, in another place.
      Having said that, I might help the House by turning to some key points in the new clause and the amendments that are before us, as well as in the proposals that have been put forward by the National Association of British Market Authorities.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When the Government are reconsidering this matter will they bear in mind the fact that it concerns deregulation, and not regulation? We do not seek, under the Bill, to bring back provisions to regulate car boot sales. Such regulation should be the subject of different legislation.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the deregulatory nature of this important Bill. When I comment on some of the key points he will perhaps realise what we are seeking to do.
      The new clause and the other amendments, which reflect the proposals of NABMA, have been eloquently presented by my hon. Friend. They contain some very constructive proposals on how to remove the potential for abuse of market franchise rights. The NABMA proposals would introduce a measure of deregulation while retaining the underlying need for some regulation of markets to protect the consumer interest. It is those suggestions that lie behind new clause 9.
      The first NABMA proposal is that a system of approval for markets should replace market franchise rights and that approval should not be withheld unreasonably. The House will recognise that an approval system would, in turn, require detailed provisions covering the applications for approvals, the procedures by which they were handled and related matters. It might be preferable simply to restrict the exercise of existing franchise rights so that they cannot be

      249
      exercised in an unreasonable way. If this approach were adopted it would certainly be necessary to define "unreasonable" so that all concerned know where they stand. I suggest that we should seek to prevent authorities from being able to stop rival markets when it is clearly in the public interest for them to operate. But this is clearly a complex area on which further discussion is needed.
      Mr. Miller: 1 am very pleased about the position that the Government have adopted in respect of this matter. If what we have here returns to the House in a different form will the Minister, given my hon. Friend's commitment and given the points that were made in relation to some local authority issues—in Committee, I cited as an example the difficulties faced by local authorities in Ellesmere Port and Neston and in Chester in relation to a particular car boot sale—commit the Government to in-depth consultation with local authorities before introducing further legislation?
      Mr. Sainsbury: I thought that I had already made it clear that, following the withdrawal of the provisions—and I hope that my hon. Friend will think it right to seek leave to withdraw his proposed new clause—we should consult very fully before introducing in another place what I hope would be agreed proposals, which would then come to this Chamber at a later stage.
      The second of NABMA's proposals suggests that there is a need to ensure that any licence fees levied on a new market by a local authority for the right to trade in restricted areas would be reasonable. I agree with that proposal, and I hope that it will be endorsed by the whole House.
      Thirdly, we agree that there is a clear distinction between commercial markets, which operate primarily for commercial profit, and those whose purpose is to raise money for charitable, sporting, social or even political purposes. It follows from that distinction that noncommercial markets should not be treated in the same way.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: Hon. Members probably do not realise that I often attend car boot sales on a Sunday if I have a couple of hours to spare. I see the car boot sale as very much a people's market. That is a very modern right and there has been an explosion of car boot sales. I welcome them and I know that millions of people enjoy them. Surely Ministers must consider them closely. People want car boot sates and they do not want unnecessary regulations to boot them out again. If someone who owns property says, "I'll lease this to you, to run a car boot sale," surely that is good business and if I come along in my car with whatever I want to sell, I can do so.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is reflecting a view that I hope that the whole House will recognise. Many people derive pleasure from attending car boot sales—the hon. Gentleman clearly does.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's markets started off as cart boot sales and that if legislation of this sort had existed and Parliament had debated it they would never have got off the ground—not Sainsbury or Marks and Spencer or Mr. Alan Sugar, who also started on a barrow in a market?
      Mr. Sainsbury: I would love to enter into a longer discussion of the historic development of retailing, but
      250
      there is a risk that you might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I could discuss that on another occasion.
      Nothing that I have said so far has been directly relevant to car boot sales, but it is clear that there are both concerns about them and concerns that they should not be unreasonably restrained. I said that we intended to consult interested parties on market franchise rights, with a view to producing agreed measures in another place. We intend that the powers available to local authorities to control commercial car boot sales would in no way be weakened by those measures. It is clear from the existing position that those powers do not prevent car boot sales from taking place.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) voiced the minority view. Does the Minister agree that car boot sales are not regulated and have become a conduit for stolen, counterfeit and unsafe goods, especially unsafe electrical goods? While I am on my feet, I must tell him that I am grateful that he has seen fit to withdraw the clauses. It is a sign of strength and not of weakness.
      Mr. Sainsbury: We are running the risk of debating car boot sales, which are clearly a matter of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, rather than market franchise rights, which are the subject of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I advise my hon. Friend that his announcement to the House will be warmly welcomed, not least by those of my constituents who operate and make their living in the indoor and outdoor markets and who administer them?
      Does he believe that there will be adequate time after the passage of the Bill through the House for the necessary meaningful consultation with all the interested parties, to enable the other place to introduce new clauses into the Bill, which will come back here in due course? Might it not be appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in separate legislation?
      Mr. Sainsbury: We are not starting from scratch. There has already been much consultation. The NABMA letter dated 26 April—it is very recent—was the result of many deliberations by that organisation and the others that supported its letter. We look forward to taking those consultations further, on the basis of the proposals in the letter, of my hon. Friend's new clause and in the light of my remarks. I have no reason to suppose that we will not have adequate time to produce amendments, if we can reach agreement on them in another place.
      Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Sainsbury: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to make some progress.
      The next point that we need to address in any further proposals is that the present market franchise rights can spill over into neighbouring local authority areas with the wholly undesirable result that one local authority with a franchise market can frustrate the attempts of a neighbouring council to set up a new market. Examples of the undesirable effects of that have been provided in earlier

      251
      discussions by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). NABMA, therefore, proposes that a local authority's market rights should be restricted to its boundaries or a radius of six and two thirds miles from the market—whichever is the nearer—and we see a great deal of sense in that.
      Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has spoken about the historic rights of markets and I appreciate what he has said tonight and the decisions that have been taken. In the course of the consultations that he is proposing, will he look carefully at the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill, which has come to the House from another place, so that he can carefully examine the rights that appertain to certain markets—those called market ouvert—which go back some 800 years, and to consider whether the Government will withdraw their support for that Bill?
      Mr. Sainsbury: The market ouvert arrangements are archaic, to say the least, and there is grave concern about the way in which they give rights to purchasers of goods in certain markets during the hours of daylight perhaps providing too much opportunity for the handling of stolen goods. That is a different measure, however, and perhaps we will discuss it further on another occasion.
      Obviously we have not had time since the NABMA letter came in and since my hon. Friend tabled his new clause, for full and detailed discussion of these proposals, but we believe that they may well offer the basis of an agreed approach. We intend to discuss the matters further with the interested parties, including consumer bodies as well as market operators and traders, with the aim of achieving deregulation which does not threaten legitimate interests, including the continuance of historic markets and authorities' existing powers over car boot sales. We hope, therefore, to table amendments on an agreed basis in another place.
      In the meantime, we accept that clauses 22 to 24, as drafted, go too far and we propose that those clauses be deleted. Therefore, I ask the House to accept amendments Nos. 51 and 52 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and others, which would delete respectively clauses 22 and 24 and to accept amendment No. 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), which would delete clause 23. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, if he thinks fit, to withdraw new clause 9. In that way we shall clear the way to further discussion with a view to reaching agreed proposals.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I rise very briefly to support the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). He and I both spoke in the debate on the Romford markets in the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, to which he referred earlier. I am pleased that Government have decided to withdraw the clauses.
      I represent the constituency of Barnsley, Central. Barnsley has a market right dating back to the 13th century which led to the development of Barnsley as a market town. In the 1960s and 1970s Barnsley had the largest open-air market in the country. I wish that we still had it, but unfortunately it has now gone.
      252
      I am extremely grateful that the Government have decided to withdraw the clauses and I hope that, with the co-operation of all concerned, particularly the Campaign for Quality Markets in which the hon. Member for Romford has taken a lead role, sensible proposals can be brought before the House for the regulation of markets in the future. I should make just one brief comment on the idea that car boot sales are something that a local charity will organise on a Sunday afternoon when everyone can turn up and sell the contents of their attics.
      Things have moved on and car boot sales are now commercial enterprises. In Leeds, people queue from 10 o'clock on Saturday nights to be first in line to take part in a car boot sale that opens at 6.30 on Sunday mornings. It takes place not in cars but in transit vans and lorries that bring goods to be sold at commercial markets. Those traders do not sell at car boot sales; they are commercial traders and a great number of car boot sales have now become commercial markets. The idea of a Sunday afternoon charity car boot sale has now been overtaken by commercial traders.
      Another example in Barnsley—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We need no more examples of car boot sales under the new clause. I call Mr. Anthony Coombs.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: It would be remiss of an hon. Member whose constituency has market franchise rights and who voted enthusiastically for the Bill in Committee not to say that I am concerned about the Government's reaction. The reason is that I believe that market franchise rights are anti-competitive and therefore against the interests of consumers. They prevent competition from legitimately springing up and, incidentally, have little effect on car boot sales.
      My council does not benefit, as a result of having market franchise rights, from being able to deter car boot sales.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) mentioned the campaign for quality markets and mentioned a series of organisations. Interestingly, the only organisations that he did not mention were those that represent consumers. It is significant that the Consumers Association is strongly in favour of the Bill, although it says that car boot sales should be better regulated. We made that point in Committee and I reiterate it today. But that is far from saying that to give only 50 per cent. of local authorities powers that effectively allow them to restrict competition from their own markets is viable, logical or appropriate for a country approaching the 21st century.
      Mr. Clapham: How does the hon. Gentleman reach the conclusion that market franchise rights are anticompetitive when they provide the context for market competition?
      Mr. Coombs: The reason why market franchise rights are anti-competitive is that people in my constituency have been trying to set up a reasonable, well-regulated service to consumers but have been unable to do so as a result of the operation of market franchise rights. That is anticompetitive and against the interests of consumers. It is therefore dangerous to argue for the retention of market franchise rights as the hon. Gentleman just has.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: May I congratulate the Minister on seeing the sense of the argument against the Government's position? The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is arguing that franchise rights exercised by local authorities are anti-competitive. Why, then, does he not support legislation to remove similar rights from private markets?
      Mr. Coombs: I support any legislation that increases competition. By abolishing market franchise rights that give local councils an opportunity to restrict competition in favour of markets in their own areas or those markets to which they choose to give that right, competition and thereby consumer choice will be increased.
      Although I understand the tactical reasons for the changes that my hon. Friend the Minister announced tonight, in any consultations that he has in the Lords, he should bear in mind that any changes that he brings back to this House must satisfy one criterion: they should not allow councils or any other operators a monopoly power over alternative operators who wish to set up in an area, in a way that would restrict consumer choice and therefore give the customer a worse deal.
      The Conservative party is all about free enterprise and giving consumers the choice that they want. It is about competition, because that gives consumers the best: deal. I hope that that will be reflected in any proposals that my hon. Friend the Minister brings back to the House.
      Sir Michael Neubert: Before I respond to what my right hon. Friend the Minister has generously said this evening, I shall make two points and attempt to restore my right-wing credentials with one or two of my hon. Friends who are not persuaded, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who contributed to this short debate. The debate would have been much longer if it had not been for the what my right hon. Friend said.
      I would like to think of myself as an enthusiastic supporter of the free market, but I have never been in favour of a complete free-for-all. All markets are regulated. For a start, we operate within the European Community, which is a controlled protected market. Whatever level one goes down, one will find regulations. So we are seeking to achieve a degree of balance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) spoke about market franchise rights being anti-competitive. I invite him to come along to Romford market on a Saturday morning, where he will see 300 individual stallholders engaged in intensive competition. Obviously, checks and balances are provided, but little evidence was provided, either in Committee or tonight, and he has not been able to provide evidence of the way in which that is seriously inhibiting competition from other enterprises. It has simply has not been demonstrated. The overwhelming weight of evidence is against the case that he makes.
      I now come to my right hon. Friend and his warm personal recollections of our entry into government together in 1983. I am very glad that, at this stage of our partnership, he was able to respond to the debate, because he has seen that what he proposed—the withdrawal of the three clauses relating to market franchise rights, and the reconsideration of the whole issue—has been welcomed by the whole House, not least myself, and in tirne for amendments to be tabled in the Lords along the lines of the
      254
      new clauses and amendments presented tonight, and by me in moving the new clause. It is a constructive approach, which has shown the House of Commons at its best. It is an issue that is more important, perhaps, than was first thought by the people coming across it.
      There are serious implications for the public interest in what will be decided by the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not exclude the possibility that, when he considers all the matters once again, it may require a further measure of Government legislation rather than amendments to the Bill, which, as one of my hon. Friends rightly pointed out, is a deregulation Bill and may not necessarily lend itself to meet the circumstances of changing commercial practice, particularly the incidence of car boot sales. But, my right hon. Friend having so generously responded to the representations made tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 11

      CHANGE OF LANDLORD: SECURE TENANTS
      '(1) The Housing Act 1988 shall be amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3) below.
      (2) In section 94–

      (a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—"(1) The right conferred by this Part shall not be exercisable by a public sector landlord, the council of a county or any other body which is not independent of such a landlord or council."

      (b) subsections(3) to (7) shall be omitted.

      (3) Subsections (1)(a) and (2) of section 106 shall be omitted'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am delighted to have this opportunity to move the new clause and to explain that it is very simple. Its purpose is to allow the tenant of a council house to choose who his landlord should be, without any restrictions. It is in the nature of a probing amendment and I am grateful for the opportunity that I had a few days ago to discuss the proposal with my hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate him on this excellent Bill, and on the opportunity that the Bill allows to introduce another proposal to get rid of regulation. I am grateful for the support of many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)—I see that he is in his place —for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
      Colleagues may already be aware of arguments that I made in a Conservative Political Centre pamphlet entitled "Choose Your Landlord":
      "I have always thought it unfair that elderly pensioners and council tenants unable to obtain a mortgage easily should lose out on valuable discounts under the Right-to-Buy,"
      The new clause would, for instance, help the elderly tenant of a council who did not wish to enjoy that right but who wanted, perhaps, his son or another relative or friend to become his landlord. At present such a tenant would have to contrive an arrangement to bring that about, and I have no doubt that that happens. He would have to borrow money from his son, purchase the house under the right to buy and keep it for three years in order not to lose any of his discounts. He would then be free to sell it—if he wished —to his son, who could become his landlord and to whom he could repay the loan. The new clause would help to avoid that rigmarole.

      255
      Under the existing law, the council would not be allowed to sell such a tenanted house directly to the chosen new landlord without first gaining the approval of the Housing Corporation, which would have to be satisfied that the new owner was financially viable and demonstrably committed to long-term rental and repair. In practice, that rules out deals within a family or between friends.
      As my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, under the excellent "tenants' choice" arrangements, some 24 local authorities have sold all their housing to housing associations, following a ballot producing a majority decision in favour. Such large-scale voluntary transfers are very welcome, but they do not help the single tenant who wants to have the landlord of his or her choice, especially in areas where local authorities might be entirely opposed to transfers of that kind.
      My new clause would allow private individuals to become landlords on council estates. It would give a boost to the right-to-buy scheme, which has already benefited 1.4 million tenants and is now benefiting some 50,000 per annum—not the rate of earlier years, but still significant. Moreover, it would give the sale of council houses in general a big boost.
      The proposals should be welcomed. They will further the revival of the private rented sector, which—in the north-west, at any rate—is already making a large contribution to the social rented sector. Some 60 per cent. of the North West Landlords Association's tenants are on benefits, according to a recent survey.
      I look forward to my right hon. Friend's presenting a housing Bill, perhaps next year; that would enable these unnecessary restrictions to be removed, if we do not remove them tonight, and make for a free housing market. I wish this excellent Bill well—I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has guided it—and welcome the opportunity to flag up the need to deregulate the sale of council houses.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I do not wish to impugn the motives of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in giving an individual tenant the chance to choose his or her landlord, but I must point out the pitfalls. Those of us whose constituencies contain council houses are probably all aware of the problems that some tenants —especially elderly tenants—have experienced when relatives who are less than scrupulous have bought houses for them and then left them without repairs. If that can happen to a small minority—I do not pretend that it is a majority problem—even when relatives are involved, I am concerned about the plight in which some people would find themselves when opting for another landlord.
      Moreover, we know that a number of tenants have been induced to buy their houses by concerted advertising campaigns run by people who see a chance of acquiring an asset on behalf of the resident. In return for a long-term lease from a private person, tenants have been induced to buy their council houses; they have then found that they do not actually own them, have run into problems with getting repairs done and have come to grief. I do not wish to overstate the case, but it has happened, and not only on a few occasions.
      In the past fortnight or so, there has been a fire in a hostel owned by a private landlord in Scarborough. Two of that landlord's companies have gone bust with debts of
      256
      £350,000. The council was instructing him to carry out repairs, but he did not feel obliged to do so until he had the funds, and we are all aware of the fatal consequences of that delay. I do not want to prejudge the case, but it is important that there is some mechanism—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
      That at this day's sitting, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Griffiths: I conclude my remarks by tying together the three points that I have made.
      I have here a copy of a press release issued by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). It states:
      "Peter Thurnham's New Clause 2 calls for an amendment to the regulations covering sales of council houses to private landlords; councils would not be allowed to reject a bidder on the basis of his quality or previous record".
      On the face of it, that statement may not seem threatening, provided that the landlord's previous record was good and that he was someone of good standing. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what would happen if a landlord such as the one in whose property the fire occurred last week were now to offer to buy that property. Again, without wishing to judge the case, I think that it is unlikely that such a person would in the present circumstances be allowed by a responsible council to bid although, if he were to be exonerated after the inquiry, his reputation may be restored. They are my genuine reservations about the new clause.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to debate this important topic. I also welcome his comments, especially those that were personally flattering to me. This is an important topic, and the sale of council houses has been one of the Government's most successful policies of the past 15 years. That policy will endure and I share my hon. Friend's aspiration that more council tenants can be provided with the opportunity to own their own homes in the years to come.
      The main effect of the new clause would be to delete the current requirement under tenants' choice legislation for potential new landlords to be approved by the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales. Tenants' choice, which was introduced by part IV of the Housing Act 1988, gives council tenants who want to go on renting their homes but who are dissatisfied with the services that they receive from their present landlord the opportunity to change to another landlord of their choice. Under the scheme, the final outcome is decided by a ballot of all eligible tenants which will take place only after the alternative landlord has set out clearly the terms and conditions on offer. Tenants who vote against transfer stay with the council. Only socially responsible stable bodies committed to the long-term business of rented housing are able to acquire property under tenants' choice and all such landlords must therefore be approved by the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales.

      257
      The role of the Housing Corporation in approving landlords is to ensure that potential new landlords will retain housing acquired for letting at rents which those in low-paid employment can afford to demonstrate proper systems of financial control, financial viability and high standards of housing management. The Government are keen to encourage the private rented sector, and the Housing Corporation's requirements are intended to provide reassurance to tenants about their potential future landlord's standards. The requirements are not intended to limit the types of landlord who may come forward with a bid to acquire housing under the tenants' choice legislation. Indeed, the Housing Corporation's own guidance makes it clear that new landlords could include not just housing associations but commercial landlords, individuals such as those my hon. Friend referred to in his speech, and tenant-controlled bodies as well. An individual or organisation which does not have approved status can then apply for it.
      The Housing Corporation also has an important: role to play in assessing the financial viability and management of potential landlords. In tenants' choice cases, a sum of money is generally paid by the local authority to the new landlord to meet the cost of priority catch-up repairs to the housing stock. In one case, the sum amounted to £17 million. That level of payment to a new landlord from public funds demands the scrutiny of the suitability of new landlords that the current provisions supply.
      I am sure that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East with me when I say that it will be desirable to retain that feature of the legislation. I have had the opportunity to discuss at length outside the House many of the ideas that my hon. Friend has put forward not only in his speech this evening, but also in the many publications in his name.
      He has made a very important contribution to the continuing debate upon the democratisation of housing and the spread of home ownership. I believe that the independence which comes from owning one's house has been a significant factor in the other important changes which have taken place in society in this country in the last 15 or 20 years.
      I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. I hope that he will agree that the proposals that he has put forward this evening in his new clause are only part of a wider agenda for housing. It would not be sensible to just pick and choose odd pieces from the jigsaw. While I believe that his ideas merit further serious consideration, I do not think that the deregulation Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve the objectives that he has in view. He should not use the Bill simply to include one important ingredient of his general proposals.
      I suggest that my hon. Friend—I hope that he will be agreeable to this course of action—withdraws his new clause this evening and that we pursue his ideas outside the House. He can then work them into a more wide-ranging and properly constructed set of proposals which might be more appropriate to include in a Bill directed specifically at housing, rather than a general Bill about deregulation within which many of the essential features of the liberalisations that he wishes to bring about could not figure because they would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
      I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. I hope that we may be able to continue the debate
      258
      later when he may be successful in putting together some workable proposals which will achieve the laudable objectives that he has set out.
      Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause on the basis of what has been said, but first I will comment briefly on the points raised during the debate.
      I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). I think that he would agree that the multiple occupation case in Scarborough is very different from what is being discussed in the new clause, which relates specifically to council tenants choosing a new landlord. The Labour party said in one of its recent policy documents that the private rented sector badly needs a boost. But I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that in the private rented sector there is no restriction whatever on one landlord passing a property to another landlord. It may occur on the death of a previous landlord, for example.
      The new landlord does not have to be approved by the Housing Corporation. No checks have to be made on his financial viability, reputation or anything else. The security for the tenant lies in the tenancy agreement itself, not in anything relating to the individual who may or may not be the landlord at a particular moment in time. The hon. Gentleman should trust the judgment of the tenant who wants to choose a new landlord and look for security in the tenancy agreement itself.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I would consider that the hon. Gentleman's argument had a little more conviction if, when housing association or Housing Corporation tenants in Scotland and elsewhere wanted to choose their landlord, they were not deliberately barred from opting for a district council. The Government do not want to extend that choice to tenants. It is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that the Conservatives support tenants' choice. We support tenants' right to choose their landlord, and we believe that if they want to choose the district council they should be allowed to do so.
      Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the weight of evidence showing, I believe, that local authorities are among the worst landlords that exist. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has sent me information from a survey entitled, "Housing in Britain", which shows that between 1986 and 1993 the proportion of tenants dissatisfied with council renting rose from 11 per cent. to 13 per cent. whereas with private renting the proportion fell to 10 per cent. It is clear where the dissatisfaction lies.
      The hon. Gentleman has only to read the most recent report of the local government ombudsman to discover that housing was the single biggest cause of complaints to local authorities. There were more than 5,000 complaints relating to council house management, repairs, mortgages, housing benefit, housing grants, and so on, and there are many references to failure to comply with legal requirements, failure to investigate issues properly, failure to take appropriate action, failure to provide adequate information, and so on. The direction in which people are heading is clear.
      I took considerable heart from what the Minister said, and on the basis that we can look forward to a comprehensive housing Bill in the next Session of Parliament—I hope that what I have said both in the new

      259
      clause and elsewhere, such as in my pamphlet, may be included in such a Bill-I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 4

      STRIKING OFF OF NON-TRADING PRIVATE COMPANIES: GREAT BRITAIN
      Amendments made: No. 63, in page 68, line 34, after 'if' insert
      ', at any time in the previous 3 months,'.
      No. 64, in page 68 leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert—

      '(a) changed its name,

      (b) traded or otherwise carried on business,

      (c) made a disposal for value of property or rights which, immediately before ceasing to trade or otherwise carry on business, it held for the purpose of disposal for gain in the normal course of trading or otherwise carrying on business, or

      (d) engaged in any other activity, except one which is—

      (i) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an application under section 652A, or deciding whether to do so,

      (ii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding the affairs of the company,

      (iii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or

      (iv) specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

      (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.
      No. 65, in page 70, line 14, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.
      No. 66, in page 70, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—

      '(i) changes its name,

      (ii) trades or otherwise carries on business,

      (iii) makes a disposal for value of any property or rights other than those which it was necessary or expedient for it to hold for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under section 652A, or

      (iv) engages in any other activity, except one to which subsection (6) applies.'.

      No. 67, in page 71, line 16, at end insert—

      '(6) This subsection applies to any activity which is—

      (a) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under section 652A,

      (b) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding affairs of the company which are outstanding because of what has been necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, such an application,

      (c) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or

      (d) specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this subsection.

      (7) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.

      No. 68, in page 71, line 17, leave out from '652D.—(1)' to 'For' in line 30.
      No. 70, in page 72, line 9, at end insert—
      '( ) include power to make different provision for different cases or classes of case,'.
      No. 69, in page 72, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
      260
      '(9) In sections 65213 and 652C. "disposal" includes part disposal.'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

    Schedule 5

      STRIKING OFF OF NON-TRADING PRIVATE COMPANIES: NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 75, line 3, after 'if' insert
      ', at any time in the previous 3 months,'.
      No. 72, in page 75, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert—

      '(a) changed its name,

      (b) traded or otherwise carried on business,

      (c) made a disposal for value of property or rights which, immediately before ceasing to trade or otherwise carry on business, it held for the purpose of disposal for gain in the normal course of trading or otherwise carrying on business, or

      (d) engaged in any other activity, except one which is—

      (i) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an application under Article 603A, or deciding whether to do so,

      (ii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding the affairs of the company,

      (iii) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or

      (iv) specified for the purposes of this head by the Department by order made subject to negative resolution.

      (1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.
      No. 73, in page 76, line 15, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d),.
      No. 74, in page 76, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—

      '(i) changes its name,

      (ii) trades or otherwise carries on business,

      (iii) makes a disposal for value of any property or rights other than those which it was necessary or expedient for it to hold for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under Article 603A, or

      (iv) engages in any other activity, except one to which paragraph (6) applies.'.

      No. 75, in page 77, line 9, at end insert—

      '(6) This paragraph applies to any activity which is—

      (a) necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, an application under Article 603A,

      (b) necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding affairs of the company which are outstanding because of what has been necessary or expedient for the purpose of making, or proceeding with, such an application,

      (c) necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or

      (d) specified for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department by order made subject to negative resolution.

      (7) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(a), a company shall not be treated as trading or otherwise carrying on business by virtue only of the fact that it makes a payment in respect of a liability incurred in the course of trading or otherwise carrying on business.'.

      No. 76, in page 77, line 11, leave out from '603D.-(l)' to 'For' in line 22.
      No. 77, in page 77, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—
      '(7) In Articles 603B and 603C, "disposal" includes part disposal.'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

    Clause 14
      BUILDING SOCIETIES: CLASS 1 AND 2 ADVANCED-THIRD PARTY MORTGAGES
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'by someone other than' and insert 'otherwise than by'. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
    Clause 16

      BARS IN LICENSED PREMISES IN ENGLAND AND WALES: CHILDREN'S CERTIFICATES
      Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 18, line 21, at end insert
      'or subsection (3AA) of this section applies.
      (3AA) This subsection applies where—

      (a) the person under fourteen, or a person in whose company he is, is consuming a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational, and

      (b) no more than thirty minutes have elapsed since the certificate ceased to be operational.'.

      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 85.
      No. 10, in schedule 6, page 81, line 11, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
      No. 11, in page 81, line 22, after 'police', insert 'or any other person'.
      No. 14, in page 81, line 25, after 'police', insert
      'or the person making the application, as the case may be,'.
      Government amendment No. 84.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 fulfil an undertaking given in Committee. Under the children's certificate provisions as they stand, every certificate will cease to be operational at some predetermined time. That will normally be 9 o'clock in the evening, but it may be earlier or later in an individual case. Immediately a children's certificate has ceased to be operational, the provisions of section 168 of the Licensing Act 1964—under which it is a criminal offence for the licensee to allow, or anyone else to cause or procure, a young person under the age of 14 to be in a bar in licensed premises during permitted hours—automatically resume their application to the bar concerned.
      The absolute nature of the "guillotine" thus imposed could cause problems for families with young children to whom a meal has been served in a bar in which a children's certificate was in force, shortly before the certificate ceased to be operational. Such a family might have insufficient time to complete their meal comfortably before they had to leave the bar so that neither they nor the licensee would be committing a criminal offence. Hon. Members with children and grandchildren will know that they cannot always be persuaded to eat up quickly. The provision would therefore seem unreasonable.
      The amendment therefore makes provision for a period of up to 30 minutes eating-up time immediately after the children's certificate has ceased to be operational. That will apply only for the purpose of allowing a young person under 14, or the adult in whose company he or she is, to consume a meal purchased before the certificate ceased to be operational. The amendment offers a sensible solution to a minor practical problem identified during the passage of the Bill and I commend it to the House.
      262
      Amendment No. 85 fulfils the undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) in Committee. It will require licensing justices who refuse to grant a children's certificate to give the unsuccessful applicant a written explanation of their reasons for refusing the application. That will, I am sure, introduce a greater element of transparency and openness into decision making in that context. It would also give unsuccessful applicants a better opportunity to consider, with their legal adviser as necessary, whether they have good grounds on which to exercise their right, for which the Bill already makes provision, to appeal to the Crown court against a justices' decision, or perhaps even to seek to have it reviewed in the High Court. I commend the amendments to the House.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the Minister's words on amendments Nos. 83 and 85 and I am grateful to him for carrying out the commitments that were given in Committee. I shall not detain the House for any great length of time at this stage. However, the amendments in my name—Nos. 10, 11 and 14—raised an especial point that came up in Committee, relating to the duration of children's certificates and the locus of various parties to appear before the licensing justices. I am advised that, despite the assurance given to me by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs the Bill as currently drafted would allow only an officer of the police and not any other person to appear and therefore would not be consistent with other legislation dealing with licences in that area. My amendments would therefore add "any other person", which I understand would be consistent with previous licensing legislation.
      I do not intend to push the point much further at this stage. I believe that there is agreement between me and the Minister in terms of locus and if the Minister looks at the words and the commitments given by his colleague the Under-Secretary of State he will see that. Before the Bill goes to another place, may I ask the Minister to have another look at my amendments to see whether they are technically necessary? Perhaps he would write to reassure me on that point.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm that I shall look carefully at what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said and I shall write to him. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that what is proposed in the Bill is consistent with other aspects of licensing legislation.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 6
      CHILDREN'S CERTIFICATES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 80, line 25, at end insert—
      'Refusal
      2A. Where licensing justices refuse an application for a children's certificate, they shall specify their reasons in writing to the applicant.'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
    Clause 17

      SUNDAY OPENING OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES IN SCOTLAND
      Mr. Phil Gallie: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 19, leave out lines 25 to 35.
      The amendment is intended to delete clause 17 and refers basically to the situation in Scotland where off-sales are not permitted on a Sunday. The amendment, by deleting clause 17, retains that restriction, which dates back to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. It is important to many people in Scotland that the situation is maintained and that Sunday represents, in some respects, a day apart from others. I supported the recent moves in England to introduce supermarket and other shop opening for limited hours on Sunday in a way that brought English law into line with Scots law. We have had that facility for many years in Scotland and, to an extent, it has been well used. If anything, it has encouraged family participation in the shopping scenario at weekends.
      Before giving my support to the reform of Sunday trading in England, I spent some time in the supermarkets in my constituency before the votes on the subject. I found that there was absolutely no problem arising from the fact that they had to shut off the licensing facilities on Sunday. The public accepted that and there was no great demand for such sales. It was widely accepted that that, in part, made Sunday different. When I spoke to those who ran town centre off-licences, they again said that there was no demand.
      Somewhere along the line, something has changed and I am not sure why. As far as I can detect, there has been no real lobby in Scotland for that relaxation. I am aware that a small pressure group has raised the issue, but I feel that it is not a major issue of the day in the towns and villages of Scotland. I welcome the Bill, but I believe that clause 17 is neither necessary nor desirable.
      My concerns relate to under-age drinking and, in part, to those unfortunates who suffer from alcoholism. In terms of under-age drinking, I feel that there is no real problem with off-sales from pubs and hotels and, to an extent, from the small off-licences. However, when liquor gets on to the streets, much of it comes from the major stores and the supermarkets. That is not deliberate; in many instances, there is no direct sale to young people. It comes about through volume trade in the larger stores and through secondary purchases—youngsters who encourage others to buy drink for them. Problems arise, especially on Fridays and Saturdays, when youngsters take drink on to the streets and into the parks. Scots, at least, should expect one day in the week when that does not happen. Sunday should be maintained as it is.
      Mr. John Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore proposing that pubs and hotels in Scotland should not be allowed to serve drink to be consumed off the premises, as well as proposing that off-licences should not be opened? What he suggests implies that.
      Mr. Gallie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my words a moment ago, he would have heard me say that the problems did not exist with the pubs and the hotels. The problems exist with the volume sales in the supermarkets, as I remarked.
      Under-age drinking is one thing the lot of the alcoholic,
      264
      which must also be considered, is another. There is a major problem here for the unfortunate individuals who drink whatever they can get their hands on. We see that with the sale of cheap, high-alcohol lagers, with fortified wines and, to an extent, with new drinks such as Buckfast. To open up the off-licences on Sunday would offer another temptation, present another problem, for people who suffer from that disease.
      By going down that line, we are pushing at an open door. We have relaxed the law on Sunday trading and there is a constant push by the major superstores to seek further advantage. The time has come to say that enough is enough.
      Mr. George Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gallie: No, I must be fairly brief. I do not have time.
      We should look at our Christian heritage and our culture. We should not throw that away altogether. In Scotland, especially in the islands, we have managed to preserve Sundays. If we accept clause 17, we shall impose something on the people of Scotland which they do not want. I ask the House to support the amendment and, therefore, to reject clause 17.
      Mr. George Robertson: It is a rare event for me to follow the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and support his amendment, although I do not necessarily accept every item in the arguments that he deployed this evening. It is all the stranger since, in the local elections last week, not many people supported the hon. Gentleman, given the loss of the three regional seats in the Ayr constituency. I fear that that is a severe warning for the future.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Cheap.
      Mr. Robertson: I would say in answer to that that it is extremely expensive for the hon. Member for Ayr, whose wafer-thin majority is certainly no longer there to protect him.
      This is an important issue. In Committee, the Minister for Industry, who has departed, said;
      "I recognise that there is genuine concern in Scotland about the measure."—[Official Report. Standing Committee F, 8 March 1994; c. 429.]
      One must ask why the measure is in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, in which context it sits uneasily. It was not in the Conservative manifesto in Scotland at the election two years ago, and there has been little or no consultation about it with the public at large and little or no warning that it would appear in such a measure in this Parliament. As the hon. Member for Ayr pointed out, there is a slight suspicion that it is in response to a specific lobby that the House is being asked to legislate on this.
      I must make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that for the Opposition—as, indeed, I believe for the Government—there will be a completely free vote when the amendment is pressed to a Division. My hon. Friends will not—I underline this—be asked to support the hon. Member for Ayr as he has simply tabled the amendment in order to facilitate the debate and to get the Government off the procedural hook on which they found themselves in the Standing Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends will

      265
      listen to the argument that I shall deploy and, at the end of the debate, vote in favour of the hon. Gentleman's amendment and delete clause 17 from the Bill.
      The law in Scotland was comprehensively changed by Parliament in 1976 following the Clayson committee report. Although the Clayson committee recommended that off-licences should be open on a Sunday, Parliament, in its wisdom in 1976 decided that that was one recommendation that it would not accept—1976 is a long time ago.
      Parliament had another opportunity to consider in some detail the form of the measure that we are talking about this evening. In 1990, when the Government introduced the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, there was another opportunity to debate the measure, but once again Parliament—this is not a partisan point because opinion differed across the board, and I shall come to that in a moment—decided that there should be no change to the law as it was established in 1976. We are talking about a period of three years between Parliament making a definitive decision—it was a definitive decision—not to change the law and the Government including a clause in this Bill to change it completely.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the provision in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was withdrawn in 1990 owing to lack of parliamentary time, not for any other reason?
      Mr. Robertson: On Second Reading in 1990, the Minister said that a great deal of time would be spent in Committee but it was not—the matter was dispensed with. Indeed, the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—the latter is here this evening—spoke against that provision on Second Reading.
      Only three years later, the Government have introduced a comprehensive change to the law based on a single clause put into wholly inappropriate legislation. I suggest that the case that was put forward in 1990 for retaining the difference between the Scottish law and the situation in England remains as valid now as it was then. Our more liberal regime in Scotland does not need any alteration, and it should not be altered until there has been a review of the way in which it has operated up to now.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Ayr, I am not articulating a keep Sunday special argument in this debate, although I recognise that some who will follow my advice tonight will do so for that precise reason. Hon. Members have been written to by the Church of Scotland's board of social responsibility, which has expressed a strong view that we should oppose the Government's proposal. I could hardly say that, since earlier this evening I voted for horse racing to take place on Sunday, and I did so consciously and consistent with all my views.
      10.30 pm
      I do not make this recommendation this evening because I hold illiberal views on the licensing laws in Scotland. I think that the liberalisation of the law in Scotland has been beneficial. It has worked well and has eliminated some of the anti-social consequences of the pre-existing legislation. Even if I held to those arguments, the reality is that people who want to buy alcohol to consume in their own home in Scotland can do so.
      266
      Although off-licences are not permitted to open for very good reasons, Parliament in 1990 and 1976 laid forth that pubs and hotels can sell alcohol.
      Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that anybody who wants to buy alcohol for consumption on Sunday in his own home can buy it from a pub, hotel or similar establishment, but the cost of the alcohol is much higher than it is in a supermarket. People can shop in a supermarket on Sunday, but when they reach the wine section the shutters are down. Does not the hon. Gentleman see an inconsistency there? Does he not accept that those who want to keep Sunday special do not have to buy their alcohol on Sunday if they do not wish to?
      Mr. Robertson: First, I was not arguing for the keep Sunday special campaign in general terms in any event. Parliament decided in 1976 and in 1990 that the difference between pubs and hotels and off-licences is that there is a greater degree of control in the sale of alcohol from the licensed premises. That is distinct from the level of control that was anticipated then and that we have seen since then in off-licences and in licensed grocers. There is a major distinction. Yes, there is a price to pay. If people want to buy alcohol, they can do so, but they do so in regulated circumstances which perhaps prevent some of the excesses that were anticipated when the law was last looked at.
      I ask the House to resist the change in the law because its consequences have simply not been thought through in relation to the peace and quiet of many citizens in Scotland today. I go back to some of the wise words which were expressed in 1990. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) in his speech in the Standing Committee brought together a number of sentiments that are worth repeating.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries, who was not a Minister at the time, said on Second Reading:
      "The provision allowing alcohol to be available at off-licences on Sundays will make control that much harder."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 198.]
      The hon. Gentleman, who is not here this evening, is now a Scottish Office Minister. Although there is a free vote, there is no doubt some informal arrangement among those on the Government Front Bench which the Minister will explain.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North is here this evening and he may well speak for himself. I do not know whether he has changed his mind or whether he is still with us.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Mr. Robertson: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of his words in 1990 before he intervenes.
      "Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about supermarkets and off-licences and I hope that we can deal in detail with them in Committee."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 206.]
      Mr. Walker: I shall be brief. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I have changed my mind and I hope to explain why.
      Mr. Robertson: It will be interesting to hear why the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind. He is a man of independent spirit on some occasions and we shall see whether he took an independent decision or he has changed his mind in response to any particular lobbying. I have quoted what he said in the previous debate.

      267
      In 1990, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, the right and learned hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said eventually that the opposition was so great that the Government would not pursue the matter. He has moved on to greater things in another area, and who knows what decision he will make this evening?
      I believe that the law should not be changed until there has been a review of three specific points. I am not implacably opposed to the measure on principle, if on three grounds the Government can prove their case. First, some conclusions of the open-air drinking experimental byelaws upon which the Government embarked two years ago must be published and discussed. The Governme nt rightly tested the idea of a ban on open-air drinking in the centres of Motherwell, Dundee and Galashiels. It was an extremely good experiment. The Government resisted allowing any other local authority in Scotland to adopt such byelaws, even though there was considerable demand for them to do so, until the experiment had been concluded.
      The Government said that the experiment could be concluded only after a sensibly long period. That period apparently has finished, but the Government have not yet published the outcome of the experiment. We should not contemplate in one clause in one Bill a substantial change in the law when the experiment that the Government themselves set up has not yet had a chance to prove itself one way or another.
      The reality today is that in so many housing estates across Scotland open-air drinking is becoming the norm rather than the exception. All Members of Parliament have found that people complain bitterly about it. The problem is not confined to the centres of towns. In many cases, it is a problem on peripheral housing estates.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I moved amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill on open-air drinking and under-age drinking? I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not here to support me when I moved those amendments.
      Mr. Robertson: I understand that the Government refused to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendments. We acknowledge that there is a demand for implementation of the byelaws in a large number of towns throughout Scotland. The Government have an experiment in place which they say we must allow to finish. They say that the conclusions must be published before they will allow such byelaws to be implemented. Surely to goodness the Government should not legislate until they have the results of the experiment, have published them and have had them debated. I firmly believe that that is part and parcel of the subject that we are discussing today.
      The reality is that a large number of youngsters purchase alcohol, or have alcohol purchased for them, in off-licences and consume it in the streets round about. Scottish Take Home News is published as a supplement to the Scottish Licensed Trade News. It is a worthwhile publication which I have received for many years. It has a front-page headline this week about Smugglers Off Sales in Saltcoats. I am not certain whether any of my hon. Friends from Cunninghame are here this evening.
      The headline is:
      "Licensee survives local authority supervision bid. Council hits at off-sales".
      The story is of the licensee of an off-licence in Saltcoats
      268
      who almost lost her licence as a consequence of under-age drinking outside the premises. The article says that Mrs. Eileen Scott, the proprietor of the Smugglers off-licence
      "who had previously been fined £200 for selling drink to under-agers, says she's 'paranoid' about youngsters around her shop who still attempt to buy alcohol and who regularly bribe or threaten older people to buy it for them."
      The article goes on:
      "Mrs. Scott is angry at the older men who buy alcohol for youngsters. She claims that some unemployed men in the area buy alcohol for under-age drinkers for £1.
      'We have been weeding it out, but it is difficult when somebody is left in the shop and gives the alcohol to others. I have been out in the street chasing children up town and phoning the police if kids are loitering with intent'."
      That is only example, but it is part and parcel of the picture across Scotland.
      The second matter that needs to be reviewed before such a change in the law is contemplated is the anomaly created by the fact that, under the law, people under 18 are not allowed to buy alcohol but are allowed to consume it, even on the streets. Again, the reality is that it is all too easy, even where the holder of the off-licence is law-abiding, for such individuals to purchase alcohol. Some of the drink in question is of very high strength. It includes spirits and the famous Buckfast fortified wine. It includes also new exotic beers with alcohol strengths of 9 to 11 per cent.—very close to the strength of wine—many of which are brewed in Scotland. They are very powerful, especially in some of the lethal cocktails that are consumed today.
      There is something at least anomalous, and perhaps daft, about a situation in which it can be a serious criminal offence for an off-licensee to sell alcohol to, or for an adult to buy alcohol for, youngsters but those youngsters may consume it legally, even if they are causing a major problem for the surrounding area. Recently I spoke to a policeman who strongly supported the campaign on this subject in which I was involved. He said that on many occasions he had taken alcohol from youngsters and poured it down a drain but worried that, in taking away other people's property, he was himself committing a criminal offence in the course of his public service. In that respect the law is in need of careful examination in advance of any change.
      The third ground for a review before legislation is passed relates to the need for an investigation by the Scottish Office into the number of off-licences that are granted. We are given the easy comparison between England and Wales, where off-licences are open on Sunday, and Scotland where, anomalously, they are not. Tradition and culture in England and Wales are, I submit, almost completely different from those in Scotland. There is a tradition of very small licensed grocers who are willing and able to sell alcohol at any time of the day or night. I seriously believe that the Government must examine carefully the facility with which grocers can secure licences and must consider whether a tough enough regime has been put in place.
      As the Department of Trade and Industry has conceded, this is an important subject that gives rise to anxiety. We have an obligation to people who have some right to respite from a plague that afflicts so many for six out of every seven days. If that plague could be dealt with effectively in some other way, if the Government have a proposal in mind, if they carry out a review of the three sectors that I have suggested should be investigated and if they can

      269
      satisfy us that the citizens on whose behalf we are complaining can be made content, they might, with some judiciousness, bring forward legislative change.
      We are embarking on the change much too hurriedly, without sufficient examination. In doing so we do a disservice to the constituents we serve. Therefore, I ask my hon Friends to support the amendment and to eliminate clause 17.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to oppose the amendment and I shall tell the House why.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) properly drew attention to the fact that, on Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1985, I spoke against. Since then I have conducted some inquiries.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton drew attention to the experiment carried out in Dundee. As a result of my inquiries into that experiment I tabled two amendments at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. My objective was to draw attention to the problem, which is not opening licensed premises, but drinking in open spaces around such premises, as the hon. Gentleman said, and—what is worse —under-age drinking.
      Under-age drinking should be a criminal offence—not merely selling alcohol to people who are under age—and, more importantly, the police should have powers to deal with that offence on the spot. We are attempting to deal with a social problem and to do so by the wrong mechanism. I can explain why it is wrong with my hand on my heart because I am teetotal, so it does not matter to me what the licensing laws are.
      I am concerned with my constituents, as is the hon. Member for Hamilton. Why should the distillery shops in my constituency not be able to sell their products to the many thousands of visitors who come to my constituency and who visit the distilleries? We quite properly want all those overseas visitors to acquire a taste for Scotch whisky and to buy it in quantities—as many of them do, but we want many more to do so. With exports at £2,000 million it is very important that our licensing structure recognises the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy. It is vital that we deal with that narrow, but important, aspect.
      It is also true to say that instead of banning things we should be liberalising, so that we can deal with the social problems, which do exist. If hon. Members had been seriously interested in the problem I would have hoped to see many more of them here. A number of hon. Members are present and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey), who supported me in my efforts to get the Government to deal with the real problem—a problem that exists on other days—which is people drinking in public places.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that the byelaw procedures would be encouraged—I hoped that the hon. Member for Hamilton would recognise that. I am paraphrasing, but my hon. Friend told me that the experiments had been encouraging, although there had been problems, to which I and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) drew attention during the debate on my amendments. If an area is outlined and detailed and alcohol consumption is banned, there is a danger of moving the problem somewhere else.
      270
      In his reply to the debate on my amendments my hon. Friend the Minister said that other areas could also be designated and that the Government would look kindly on that. That is part of the method of dealing with the problem, but I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton that we should have legislation that addresses the real problem—anti-social drinking at whatever age by anyone. That is no reason for not allowing the off-licences, which quite properly are in competition—I am a great believer in competition—to open on Sundays.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I am probably as good a Christian as he is—at least I hope I am. I try very hard, but as with many other things, one is never as good as one would like to be. I take the view that Sunday is a day when I want to do the things that I enjoy. If I enjoy going to church, that is fine. If I enjoy doing other things, that is also fine, but I have never seen Sunday as a day on which I want to prevent others from doing what they enjoy.
      I have always thought that, in Scotland, Sunday is the day when we enjoy our family life and get together. Although most of my family are teetotal, my brothers and sisters have inherited the fine Scottish habit of consuming a wee dram. They often do that on Sundays and I have never noticed any adverse effects. If they were to run out, they would want to go out and get supplies, particularly when they have barbecues on Sundays.
      We should look seriously at the real problems and not try to prevent drinking through the mechanism of this legislation.
      Mr. Maxton: This debate is creating some very strange alliances across the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was supporting the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I am about to support the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and, presumably, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
      There have been very few occasions on which I have been in alliance with the hon. Member for Tayside, North. I have been convinced of the arguments for opening off-licences on Sundays, particularly in supermarkets, but a strange anomaly developed, which the hon. Member for Ayr did not take into account. Supermarkets were opening illegally in England, but were able to sell drink from their off-licence departments yet no action was taken against them whereas in Scotland supermarkets were opening perfectly legally—it was within the law for them to do so —but their off-licences were closed.
      Although Scots were able to go into supermarkets and buy what they wanted perfectly legally, they could not buy drink as part of what was often their weekly shopping. My wife often does a full weekly shop in Safeway on a Sunday afternoon. Of course, she cannot buy a bottle of sherry, whisky or wine along with the rest of the shopping. That is absurd. It is equally absurd that hotels and pubs are perfectly able to sell drink for consumption outside their premises, while supermarkets and off-licences which may be just a couple of doors down the street from the pub or hotel cannot sell it.
      As the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside pointed out, when people have to go into a pub or hotel to buy their drink, they pay considerably more.
      It seems to me that the argument of both the hon. Member for Ayr and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was about not selling drink for off-licence

      271
      purposes in Scotland so that people could not drink outside or anywhere else. That is not an argument for closing off-licences and leaving pubs and hotels open.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does my hon. Friend have information on the amount of alcohol sold for consumption outside pubs on Sundays? What would the figures be if alcohol now became available in off-licences as well? Would not there be a tremendous increase in the amount of alcohol sold once it became available in the other outlets?
      Mr. Maxton: I am not sure that that would be so. I openly admit that I have no figures, but I doubt whether my hon. Friend has, either. If he can produce figures to prove his point, that is fair enough, but I doubt whether he can.
      I accept the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made against outside drinking and tighter controls on under-age drinking and off-licences generally and I should like to see the review that he suggests. However, those arguments apply for the six days a week on which off-licences are now open and it would not make an enormous difference if they were also open on Sundays. So although his arguments are legitimate, they are not necessarily against keeping the clause in the Bill.
      Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the remarks by my hon. Friend and distinguished constituent. But are not the products sold by pubs and hotels, which can sell on the seventh day of the week, different? Although most pubs and hotels are entitled to sell alcohol, they are wary and usually do not sell Buckfast fortified wine and some other products that seem to be available in licensed grocers, with only one destination. Although I am asking for a review because a change in the law is proposed, many people who live in close proximity to off-licences and licensed grocers have at least some relief from the aggravation that they suffer on one day out of the seven.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has made his point but it is not an argument against opening off-licences on Sundays. I should have been happy to accept an amendment that would allow the opening of off-licences only in supermarkets. I put forward the idea as a possible way to deal with the problem but it was not widely accepted by other Opposition Members. It would have been a way to deal with smaller off-licences, but it was not suggested that I should table such an amendment.
      I have tabled a new clause, which has not yet been debated, on putting fluoride into water in Scotland. The only argument that has been put to me against my new clause is that public opinion in Scotland is against putting fluoride into water. Evidence from all opinion polls on this issue in Scotland shows that an overwhelming majority of Scottish people favour opening off-licences in Scotland.
      Reluctantly, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is my Member of Parliament, I shall be in the opposite Lobby to him tonight, voting against the amendment.
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has made a good suggestion in a private conversation here in the Chamber—that more such matters
      272
      should be examined by the licensing board, which consists of men and women who live in the community and know the problems close at hand.
      United Distillers and Tennents breweries are in my constituency. They are both excellent employers and I want no harm done to their sales. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that they would like to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket on a Sunday because they have run short and are having friends for dinner. But in some parts of my constituency shopping facilities have housing above them, and to enter the housing one has to go through a door situated in the centre of the shops. Because of the terrible weather that we have in Glasgow, when young people and people over a certain age buy their carry-outs and cans of super lager it is natural for them to consume them in the close mouth. It is not a question of saying, "Keep the Sabbath holy", but at least those tenants will have one day a week with a bit of peace and quiet.
      11 pm
      That brings me back to the argument about Sunday opening. No one ever gave a thought to the fact that most of our major cities in Scotland have tenement property, and that people in such property are being annoyed on a Sunday by drinkers urinating in the close mouth. Sometimes, because of the behaviour of those drinkers, people are ashamed to invite their friends and relatives to visit them. If they want to meet them, they do so in the town and elsewhere.
      I recognise that perhaps that problem does not exist in a big supermarket complex that has received all the considerations of the planning committee and the advice of the planning officials, and where it is away from built-up areas. People who go to a supermarket to buy alcohol usually go there by car. They are not drinking and driving; they buy the alcohol, put it in the boot of the car and go home. But a few hardened drinkers gather in little congregations all over my constituency—sometimes around schools. They call them "garden parties". In fact, if we have good weather, there they are with their cans of super lager. Quite frankly, they demean the area.
      If we said that we should undertake a review of under-age drinking and of the people who are abusing alcohol, it still would not address the problem, but it would go some way to doing so if we gave the local licensing authorities a chance to say, "This is an application for a licence for Sunday opening in a built-up area. What do the neighbours have to say?" The neighbours could then go to the licensing committee and say, "It is all very well for someone living in the leafy suburbs, but we live next to multi-storey flats; the off-licence is at the bottom and people will be hanging around the lifts after they have bought a drink and annoying women and elderly people."
      We must admit that we are living in a society in which more and more of our aged citizens are being frightened. It is, perhaps, not the danger that they are in but the danger that they perceive themselves to be in. That adds to their insecurity. I recognise that it is a serious problem.
      Are we supporting the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)? I pay him the compliment of saying that there is a large supermarket in the centre of the town of Ayr with a big notice telling everyone to campaign and lobby him —it uses his name—to say that the drinking laws should be changed in favour of the supermarkets. I believe that his amendment gives some consideration to his constituents and many other people who feel that, if one wants to get a

      273
      carry-out—that is what it is called in Glasgow; if one wants to buy some products from the off-licence, it is called "getting your carry-out"—one can do it six days a weeks.
      Mr. David Jamieson: It is the same in Plymouth.
      Mr. Martin: Perhaps it is the same in Plymouth; I do not know. It can be done. I know that, when we try to control the sale of alcohol, we find ourselves involved in all sorts of ridiculous legislation. We must consider those who want a wee bit of peace and quiet on a Sunday.
      Mr. Galbraith: I fear that I shall develop a reputation as a killjoy, which would amaze some former colleagues from my previous incarnation. I support the amendment —for a number of reasons, but first on the basis of the general principle that this is not the way in which to handle Scottish legislation that significantly affects the nature of Scottish society. I think that even my hon. Friends—and any Conservative Members who support Sunday opening for off licences—ought to oppose this method of introducing an important piece of Scottish legislation that should have been subject to wide consultation, considered in the Scottish Grand Committee and only then introduced in the House. It is premature and wrong.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Government introduced the proposal in the considered setting of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1990, but it was rejected by a Scottish Committee and went no further? They are now trying to reintroduce it in a particularly back-door way.
      Mr. Galbraith: I agree. Once again Scottish legislation has been tacked on to a United Kingdom Bill at an inappropriate time, and I hope that my hon. Friends who favour Sunday opening for off-licences will none the less oppose it on that basis.
      A number of matters must be considered. I make no apology for again using the "Keep Sunday Special" argument, but it need not be advanced from a Christian perspective; it can be advanced from the perspective of a society in which, for non-Christian reasons, it is considered appropriate to set aside one day when people can have a bit of peace and quiet and not be bothered by the run-of-the-mill hassles of everyday life. That is an important requirement that is at the heart of Scottish culture and society, and we should not throw it away without further consideration.
      The measure will not only affect supermarkets—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has agreed that the position may differ there—or off-licences; it will affect licensed grocers. Together, the two constitute a problem. Licensed grocers often operate on large housing estates that may be areas of deprivation, trouble and hooliganism; they can open at 8 am on Sundays and start selling huge ranges of cheap alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart suggested that that was no different from pubs being open, but it is. Pubs are generally open for people to consume alcohol on the premises. I do not know the figures, but it must represent at least 95 per cent. of Sunday sales. They do not have a wide range, and alcohol is expensive. People do not
      274
      generally come out of pubs with large amounts; it is drunk on the premises. That does not apply to licensed grocers, which are poorly regulated and sell other products.
      Off-licences, too, are a problem in my constituency. I receive numerous complaints about off-licences' opening at 8 am, when queues of customers—often from the outer parts of my constituency—have already formed, and corner boys hang around disturbing the neighbourhood. Surely we can allow local residents one day on which they will not be troubled in such a way; surely that is not too much to ask. It is all very well for those of us like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who disappear elsewhere at weekends, but many others find it a disturbing time, and I hope that we can consider them.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) claims that this can all be dealt with through byelaws banning open-air drinking. I caution hon. Members against that argument. I have no doubt that such measures would deal with the problem to some extent, and I hope that my local authorities will introduce them soon—I have already spoken to them—but we should not be deceived into believing that they would effectively eliminate it.
      Let us remember that the experiment was carried out in three areas. It is in the nature of experiments that they change things and the results of an experiment are always preferable to what happens when the subsequent legislation is introduced because the police and the shopkeepers are on their toes during an experiment and everyone involved is engaged in keeping the areas under a microscope. The results are not so good once the experiment involves the general population.
      The issues should be considered fully before any decision is taken. The Government are remiss in tagging this proposal on to a United Kingdom Bill. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose clause 17 and accept amendment No. 86.
      Mr. Galloway: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on the sincere and powerful way in which he moved the amendment. The last time I agreed with him in public was in George square in Glasgow when we shared a platform during the "Save the Whale" demonstration.
      I deal first with the allegation made in a number of speeches by Labour and Conservative Members that the amendment is intended to stop people in Scotland having a whale of a time on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has just said that it is not necessary to sign up to the Keep Sunday Special campaign to accept that there is a certain rhythm to life on these islands, that Sunday has been a different kind of day from the rest and that many people like it and want to keep it that way, especially with regard to licensing hours. I am a lower case "keep Sunday special" man: I do not think that I fit easily the caricature of the Sabbatarian killjoy, and I am certainly not arguing from that standpoint.
      As in Committee, I am tonight arguing from the standpoint that has been identified by a number of my hon. Friends. The first argument that I hope the serried ranks of my colleagues behind me will find persuasive is that we are debating what is, in effect, a constitutional outrage. The Government are trying to slip in a proposal that would materially change the rhythm of Scottish life and they are trying to do so by means of a little clause added on to a controversial United Kingdom Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with when and where people in Scotland can and should consume alcohol. Indeed, it was voted on by a

      275
      Committee where the majority was provided by English Members of Parliament who knew nothing about the arguments but were whipped to support the legislation.
      If such a change is to be considered, there should be full public consultation in Scotland involving Scottish Members on a Scottish Committee. I should prefer consideration to take place in a Scottish Parliament, but, if it is to take place before there is such a thing—before the next election—it should be done properly after an informed debate in Scotland, not by this subterfuge.
      Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I caution the Minister to be very careful in the current climate about inadvertently misleading the House. It cannot be true that the only reason why the proposal was withdrawn in 1990 was the lack of parliamentary time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) cited the then Secretary of State's assertion that it was to be withdrawn under fire from all sides in an appropriate place—a Scottish Committee. If it is to be reintroduced, that is where it should happen. That is the first argument against the clause.
      11.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) talked about unusual alliances, but I find myself in the usual position of disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the nicest possible way. We are not talking about the Oddbins, pukka, posh wine shop in the Elysian fields of Hamilton where he lives—he has fought for those fields over the years—or, for that matter, in Byres road in my constituency. We are not talking about the person who decides to have a barbecue on a nice day and rolls up to Oddbins in the west end to stock up on Chablis or Chateauneuf du Pape.
      We are talking about what is effectively a super-lager lout's charter. The problem is not in Hamilton's Elysian fields or in Byres road; the problem is in the peripheral housing estates—the deserts with windows—which were constructed by ill-advised Governments and councils in the past. People are imprisoned on those housing estates, and at the moment they have one day's relief from the problem which has been identified in the House this evening but which is worth repeating. I refer to the problem of the licensed grocery which, all too often, is owned by a shopkeeper who is not sufficiently alert to the fine print of the licensing laws—and not only the licensing laws, but this is not the place to develop that argument.
      We are not talking about the posh Oddbins in the west end of Glasgow, but about barbed-wired, iron-barred licensed grocery stores in housing estates. They are usually in a parade of shops with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) correctly said, people living above them and in the surrounding houses and tenement buildings. Those people have to go to the shops to buy their milk, bread and newspapers on Sundays. If this measure is passed, they will have to run the gauntlet —as they do on the other six days of the week—
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
      They will have to run the gauntlet of corner boys and louts who are drinking their high-octane, super-charged
      276
      super-lager and cheap wine. That is the social problem that we are dealing with. We simply ask: why should people who are already suffering that six days a week, have to suffer it on a seventh day?
      Mr. O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Galloway: I will give way in a moment.
      Why should they suffer that, especially when there has been no proper debate about the matter in Scotland and the measure is not being taken in the full light of informed public opinion?
      Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I did not mean to interrupt him, but I thought that he would forget that I wanted to intervene.
      I have followed his argument very carefully. The abuse which he mapped out very dramatically over the six days seems to be a result of the working of the existing licensing codes in granting licences to these grocers' shops. The answer to the problem which he has identified so accurately is to prevent the grocers from being given licences in the first place; or, alternatively, to police them far more fiercely than they are at present.
      It is quite clear that there are alternative retail outlets which could provide alcoholic beverages if necessary. The sale of alcohol in this manner is wholly inappropriate in particular areas. My hon. Friend should be attacking that problem, not the Bill.
      Mr. Galloway: Can my hon. Friend see that if we cannot prevent this behaviour six days a week, we have little chance of preventing it seven days a week? I am well aware that, to some extent, the current law is not being implemented properly. But we will not solve that problem by visiting it upon people on a seventh day.
      People ask me: if these abuses are occurring outside off-licences, why cannot people telephone the police? In Scotstoun in my constituency if people telephone the police on a Friday or Saturday to say that there is a lout urinating outside an off-licence, they will be lucky if the police arrive the next day. There are not enough police in the areas that I am talking about. When I was in Newton Mearns the other day, I saw plenty of police on patrol, but there do not seem to be quite so many police around when one needs them on the housing estates that we are talking about. It involves a different class of criminal.
      The women, children and others who have to run that gauntlet and walk past the lout with the bottle of cheap sherry in one hand, who is urinating, shouting abuse and indulging in all the other anti-social behaviour that takes place outside licensed grocers and off-licences, are saying to us, "Solve the problem for the other six days a week before you try to force it down our throats on the seventh day."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton carefully set out the improvements and reforms that we would like to be made before we would agree to allowing alcohol to be sold on the seventh day. If the Government said that they had proposals to deal with the abuses and problems, and if they said it persuasively enough for us to believe them, no doubt we would drop our objection. Unlike the hon. Member for Ayr, we do not oppose in principle selling drink on a Sunday.
      We are mounting the case, persuasively, I hope, that our people—working-class people in Labour constituencies —are those worst affected by the problems. We shall not

      277
      solve the problems by introducing a seventh day in the week on which they will be allowed to get worse. On behalf of those people, and in support of the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, have much sympathy with the amendment and I shall certainly support it. However, I was interested to discover that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is not making any alternative suggestions. I am not sure how the Minister will react to his proposal, but I hope that it will be favourably.
      I am sorry that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself was not selected for debate, because we suggested that the opening of off-licences on Sunday should come under the direction of the local licensing board. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) suggested, board members are the people who should have the right to decide whether off-licences should open.
      I believe that there is no need for off-licences to open on a Sunday. There are already plenty of outlets for the purchase of alcohol, and, as we have heard, we have enough problems already with alcohol, alcoholism, alcohol-related crimes and under-age drinking. We do not need to add to those difficulties by allowing a greater supply of alcohol, especially on a Sunday.
      I am prepared to argue on behalf of the many churchgoing communities in Scotland. They will be appalled if clause 17 stands. Over the years they have seen their Sunday, which they believe is holy, and should be treated as a day of reverence and of rest, eroded. Many others, too, believe that Sunday is a special day. It is a day for the family, a day on which people can try to recover from the traumas of their lives during the rest of the week.
      The hon. Member for Ayr said that he supported the Sunday Trading Bill. I did not. Although we already had deregulation in Scotland, I was aware that if it came about in England, too, many stores that did not previously open on a Sunday in England would start opening on a Sunday in Scotland. Only this afternoon, a measure was passed that will allow more gambling with betting offices being opened for off-course betting. So, on a Sunday, we shall see gambling and more alcohol, which I believe that the people of Scotland, on the whole, do not want.
      Sunday is a special day and it is a day that the people of Scotland want to keep special. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that the tourists would not be able to buy whisky. However, they can buy whisky on every other day of the week and it will not spoil their visit to Scotland if they go there to find that we have a different day and a special type of Sunday, which we cherish and care about.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that, in Oban, it is any different from the position in Pitlochry on Sunday, where all the shops are open and all the traders are catering for the many thousands of visitors who we welcome. It seems that the hon. Lady is making allegations that just do not represent what happens in our constituencies, where we are very much for tourism. They are full of life on Sunday. It is not a day of rest. All the people working in the shops are certainly not resting.
      Mrs. Michie: I referred to the fact that there are many places in many parts of Scotland where people care deeply about their Sunday. Indeed, there are many people in Pitlochry who also care about their Sunday.
      Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Michie: Just once.
      Mr. Kynoch: With regard to those people who want to keep their Sunday different and want to have a day of rest, does not the hon. Lady agree that they can still have their day of rest? First, they do not have to open if they are a shopkeeper and, secondly, if they are a customer, they do not have to buy. There is no compulsion in the clause. It is freedom of choice.
      Mrs. Michie: But that is not the reality of what happens. We have heard what happens, especially on the housing estates. What will happen in the smaller communities? I can think of one where the people will be in church and, if the betting office is open, it will be just alongside the church. In the next street, the off-licence will be open and, up the road, the big superstore will be open. What I am trying to say is that Sunday is a special day in Scotland and something that we should care about.
      Every community is different. They are different in the north of Scotland in comparison to the south. I accept that. Strong views are held in some communities and perhaps less strong views in others, but by including clause 17 in the Bill, the Government will be riding roughshod over local opinion. That opinion should be reflected by community councils, local organisations, and district councils, and any action taken on that subject should be done by the licensing boards, as I have already said. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and perhaps consider coming back here, or in the other place, to introduce legislation under which local licensing boards have the authority to allow places to be open or shut. That would be acceptable to the majority of hon. Members and to the majority of communities in Scotland.
      Mr. William McKelvey: On this occasion, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who moved the amendment, and I also disagree with some colleagues with whom, formerly, I would have agreed. May I also declare an interest? I was a former chairman of a licensing board and had the reputation of being a liberal chairman—with a small "1" and with a big heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who spoke so eloquently about his passion for keeping Sunday safe, supported me in some of the liberalising measures, such as being the first area in Scotland to have pavement licences. He very much applauded that.
      I am also the chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. It has a very serious interest in allowing premises to be open on Sunday, not so much for the sale of whisky from off-licences as for very important tourist reasons. The 100 or so distilleries that open their doors for visitors on a Sunday and allow them to see the reception areas and the museum areas, because the distilleries are part of the heritage of Scotland, find it an anomaly that, while they may provide the visitors with a free dram, which they regularly do, once those visitors to our shores have acquired an instant liking for the spirit of life, they cannot —they are somewhat disturbed by this—purchase whisky

      279
      on a Sunday from the distillery. They could, of course, go to the nearest pub to buy the same drink at an inflated price. However, I have never argued that inflated prices should be paid by visitors to our shores. Tourists, especially in highland areas, add a great deal to the local economy.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Galloway: We find ourselves in the very foreign relationship, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) says, of disagreeing with each other. It strikes me that, if it was so much in the distilleries' interest to seduce the visitor or to hook him on the spirit of life, they could give it away in miniatures as a kind of loss leader. Discovering that they like it so much, the tourists could buy it on Monday in great quantities.
      Mr. McKelvey: The difficulty with that approach is that some of the tourists might be winging their way out of Prestwick on a Sunday evening back to their homeland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead will be interested to know that it will soon be the 500th anniversary of the discovery—or invention—of Scotch whisky. The Scotch Whisky Association has put together an up-to-date programme listing the 42 distilleries which, on a Saturday, will welcome anyone to their premises and which will give free entry in most cases. In all cases, they will give a free dram to those who wish to see how a distillery works and to understand and learn about the history of Scotch whisky, as part of our heritage. The visitors will even be allowed to purchase, perhaps on a Saturday, a bottle of whisky. It is the nonsense of the legislation—or the lack of it—to which I object.
      It is crazy to say that on a Saturday, the licensed grocers or the off-licences can open and dispense their drink, but not on a Sunday. If there is a difficulty about the drinks that they are dispensing, that is something with which we must deal. The one big mystery is where the lager louts go on a Sunday. Where do the groups of people who hang about and urinate in the closes on a Saturday go on a Sunday?
      I agree that all licence-holders should be very careful about what they sell on their premises. However, I have yet to come across a publican who would not give someone a carry-out provided that he had the money to pay for it. Anyone can buy a case of strong lager from the pub. He can then, presumably, hump it on his back to the nearest close where people can gather in a group, start to drink and do all the unpleasant things of which they are accused. I know that lager louts gather in groups in some housing schemes and that they create difficulties for respectable people. That problem should be dealt with instantly by the police. Authorities already have that power.
      We asked the Minister about an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Through our amendment, we said that we wanted the measures that had applied in the experiment in Dundee and in other areas to be introduced elsewhere. The experiment was partially successful, certainly in central areas where a large number of lager louts had been gathering and creating abuse not only for Dundee's respectable citizens but, visitors as well. It also happens in some central areas in our capital city. In the experiment, we were able to legislate to disperse the lager louts and—I agree—in some cases
      280
      simply to move them to back streets or some underground howff which they may have chosen. However, they could still be pursued if the areas were extended.
      I hope that the Minister is not going back on the promise that he made at the time. At the Dispatch Box, he said that, if any authority applied for areas where drinking in public would be a criminal offence, the Scottish Office would move with alacrity to supply the means to do that.
      We were also concerned that the measure might go too far. If people are having a garden party or a barbecue out in the country and a bottle of wine is produced, suddenly half a dozen detectives could swoop on them from the trees and whisk them away. That is not what is intended, but it could happen if the Government are not careful about the way in which they couch the legislation. There is no need —and there should not be a case for it—for respectable citizens to be molested by drunken louts on any of our streets. As it is an offence, the police have the right to take care of that sort of situation, and they should do so.
      Are we suggesting that drunkards do not pour out of pubs on occasions, and that we do not see gangs of drunken louts, not particularly at close heads but in the main streets of Glasgow, creating difficulties for people and visitors? They are there. At certain times of the night when clubs close, there is a huge exodus of people who are high sometimes on drink and sometimes on illicit drugs. There are great difficulties in those areas and we must legislate for that.
      To come out with pious nonsense and say that we must keep Sunday special in order to give a rest to people who are molested six days a week is intolerable. I do not want anyone to be molested for six days a week. I do not want them to be molested for five, four, three, two days or one day a week. I would agree with legislating along those lines. Some may argue that this is an underhanded method of finding a piece of legislation, but if one happens to agree, it is acceptable. [Interruption.] That happens in the House time after time. If legislation happens to be introduced, by whatever device, and we are in favour of it, we often find that it is acceptable. It is not a question of principle. I stand here as principled as other hon. Members, but perhaps a bit more honest than some.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of drugs on our streets. Recently, I heard him talk about the problems of alcoholism; he said that there is no real cure. Clause 17 will exacerbate the problem because it goes too far. Will the hon. Gentleman consider his position with regard to his recent comments on alcoholism and accept that it is something that cannot be cured totally?
      Mr. McKelvey: I accept that the situation is not out of control. With the police acting promptly, the problem can be solved. There is absolutely no need for anyone to tolerate the sort of scenes that have been outlined in the debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me that town councils and local authorities should have more power, not less, as has been happening under other Government legislation. Licensing boards should have, as they once did, the power to legislate and not to grant licences where either an off-licence or a licensed grocer was selling to children, or where a public house was not being kept properly. Today, if there is evidence of under-age drinking in public houses, the licence can be

      281
      taken from the publican. The publican safeguards the licence and regards it as a precious piece of property since, in effect, it is his livelihood.
      It is not true that we are awash in Scotland with outlets for drink. Recent surveys have shown, incredibly, that the macho-like Scots are not—as they might imagine—the heaviest or hardest drinkers in the United Kingdom. In some parts of England and Wales, the drink consumed per capita is one and a half times what it is in Scotland.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman remember Dundee in the days when the pubs closed at 9.30? There were enormous problems with drunkenness in the city of Dundee, which vanished when the licensing laws were changed and were made much more sensible and relaxed.
      Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, who spoke so eloquently, may recall that on Friday evening, it was a great event, as a child in Atholl street in Lochee—where I lived and where my hon. Friend was born—to wait until the pubs emptied so we could line up in the streets and see the street fighting. It was not the kind of gang attacks which occur there now—it was quite artistic pugilism when the pubs emptied.
      I argued at the time on the licensing board that one of the reasons why we had so much trouble at half-past nine was that those people who finished their overtime at 9 o'clock got into the pub and downed as many nips and halves as they could in a short period which knocked them squidgy. They went outside, were not their usual selves and some trouble occurred.
      When we extended the licensing times, the holy Willies told us that it was hell and damnation and that the whole nation would be drunk from morning till night, and even beyond that. In fact, that has not been the case at all. First, people could not consume that amount of alcohol and remain on their feet. Secondly, there is the question of cost. People simply cannot afford to spend their money over that period of time.
      Irrespective of the means by which the legislation has been introduced to the House—I should have preferred it to have been done through a proper survey—I have a strange feeling that, even if in a referendum 90 per cent. had been in favour of opening, the same opposition as we are hearing tonight would have been voiced in the Chamber for a variety of reasons.
      I firmly believe that we should legislate to bring the matter into a proper balance. If the experiment were to be done, it would show that, in the long term, no additional harm would be done to our society and to the life we live in Scotland. There would certainly be no reason why life would be any worse.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I find myself very much in sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
      In response to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I shall say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs made it clear in Standing Committee that, to provide an opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House, he invited the Committee to allow the clause to remain in the Bill. He said that we could have a proper debate with as many participants as possible—in particular Scottish Members—and in circumstances where the Whips would not try to determine the outcome.
      282
      I warmly welcome the fact that this will be a free vote, certainly for every Government Member and I hope that that includes Opposition Front-Bench Members. The hon. Member for Hamilton also raised the issue of there being too many off-licences in some areas. That is, of course, entirely a matter for local licensing boards, which can refuse applications for new off-licences if they are satisfied that the granting of a licence would result in an over-provision in a particular locality.
      11.45 pm
      That provision was introduced in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which was piloted onto the statute book by Harry Ewing, now Lord Ewing, for the last Labour Government, whom I recall. Unlike many of my colleagues on the Front Bench, I remember what it was like to be in opposition.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: If it is right that the licensing boards have a power in respect of provision, why is it not equally right that the licensing board should have the power to determine whether it is in the community's interests for an off-licence to be open on a Sunday? The Minister is familiar with my constituency. Does he honestly think that it is right that one individual can thwart and defy the wishes of an entire community such as that in the Western Isles on this matter? Would not it be more democratic for the local licensing boards to have the option?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Guest committee considered whether the matter should be discretionary in its 1960 report. It recommended that, instead of the varied hours fixed by the licensing courts of the day, there should be standard permitted hours for licensed premises for the whole of Scotland. That was accepted by the Clayson committee.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not think that the Minister is giving the House the whole story. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I have some professional expertise in licensing matters and from time to time appear on behalf of companies and individuals who might be thought to have some pecuniary interest in the outcome of our deliberations. The Minister piloted the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill through the Committee in 1990. He knows that the determination of the regular extension of permitted hours is a matter entirely within the discretion of local licensing boards. Why does he not use that as a parallel when considering the issue that has just been put to him? Why should it not be within the discretion of licensing boards in Scotland to determine whether off-sales shops should be open to reflect the different social conditions throughout Scotland?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As a member of the Clayson committee, the hon. and learned Member will recall that the committee recommended that there should be standard permitted hours. That provision was included in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1962 and continued by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The crux of the matter is that it would be anomalous to introduce a specific discretion for licensing boards solely in relation to Sunday hours for off-sale premises in their areas.
      The crux of the matter was referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He made it clear that it was a striking anomaly that, whereas the

      283
      off-sales sections in supermarkets and other shops have to be cordoned off, off-sales from public houses and hotels are available, although much more expensively.
      As for enforcement, licensing boards have powers to suspend the licence of off-licence premises on receipt of a complaint. They rightly have those powers at present.
      Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have many points to cover.
      With regard to choice, under clause 17 licensed retailers will be able to assess the commercial opportunities for themselves. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) properly mentioned distilleries which provide conducted visits for tourists. The distilleries would have the opportunity, if they wished to do so, to sell souvenirs of their products. That would undoubtedly be good for tourism. I have to point out again to the House that tourists businesses are the largest single employer in the whole of Scotland.
      Clause 17 does not permit off-licences to trade on a Sunday morning before 12.30, having regard to the existing opening time of 12.30 for licensed premises generally. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) raised the issue on 27 October and I made it clear that one day it might come before the House and be put to the vote. I support the clause on the grounds that it removes an anomaly, benefits tourism and increases consumer choice.
      Relevant points were made earlier about nuisance. I want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). Many statutory offences already exist and should be used. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of someone urinating. This is covered by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (1982), which deals with drunken and incapable behaviour, urination in public places in circumstances that would cause annoyance and obstruction of the lawful passage of another person. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1980) includes an offence of vandalism, as well as augmenting the common law on malicious mischief, and behaviour likely to cause alarm or annoyance may constitute the common law crime of breach of the peace. All those offences attract sizeable fines or imprisonment.
      I want to deal with the key issue concerning byelaws that was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton. I agree that this is the way forward. The experiments have been successful, and we hope that local authorities will come forward with proposals. Indeed, seven are already discussing possible byelaws with the Scottish Office. I hope very much that the process will be completed successfully. The maximum penalty for breach of the byelaws is a fine of £500.
      Mr. George Robertson: When does the Minister intend to publish the results of the byelaw experiment so that the rest of Scotland may share the experience of the three towns that were chosen? Have the fears about displacement of the nuisance been realised? Surely the proper way to proceed is to publish the report on what has been an ambitious, and what the Minister has just described as a successful, experiment so that the people of Scotland may themselves come to a conclusion, rather than
      284
      to provide an add-on to a deregulation measure that has little or nothing to do with the problem that we know exists.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have already debated this issue in the context of criminal justice legislation. Although the final results of the experiment have yet to be published, the main conclusions, with guidance, have already been issued to the local authorities, and we are prepared to consider any application sympathetically. I have also mentioned the fact that licensing boards already have the relevant sanctions to withdraw or suspend a licence where there is a nuisance. The purchase by an older person of alcohol for a person under 18 is already an offence.
      Mr. Galloway: The Minister is advancing the fatuous argument that all the nuisances that we have described are already offences. We realise that. But how many prosecutions does the Minister think there have been in the city of Glasgow, or anywhere else, in the past 10 years? Given the burden on the overstretched police forces, does the Minister really think that a constituent of mine phoning up to say that a lout is urinating outside an off-licence will see the arrival of police in less than four or five hours, by which time the lout has staggered off?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Enforcement of the law is very much a matter for the police.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raised the point. His party kept the police force in Strathclyde under strength. I am glad to say that it has had a change of heart and that the police are now becoming much stronger. I can assure the House that there has been no change whatsoever in the treatment of alleged offences that come before the law enforcement agencies, which will pursue cases vigorously.
      We are very concerned about under-age drinking. We encourage schools to tackle alcohol issues in the context of health and education programmes. Currently we are engaging in a poster campaign. But, more important, statutory obligations have been introduced. There is a statutory embargo on unsupervised sales by people under 18 in off-licence or wholesale premises; it is an offence for any person to buy alcohol for or to sell alcohol to a person under 18; and it is an offence for a person under 18 to buy alcohol for his own or any other person's consumption. Indeed, we have made various other changes.
      Mr. Gallie: It has been pointed out that it is illegal to sell drink to young people. But it is not illegal for young people to consume drink. What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It most certainly is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to buy alcohol for his own or any other person's consumption. I made that absolutely clear to the House, so the circumstances that the hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned may well be illegal.
      Attitudes have changed. In a recent survey for the Scottish Retailers Licensing Law Reform Group, by System 3 Scotland, 63 per cent. of a sample of more than 1,000 adults were in favour of retail stores selling alcohol on Sundays and 37 per cent. said that they would be likely to buy alcohol from a licensed retailer on a Sunday. The commercial reality will simply be that off-licences will remain closed on a Sunday unless they have sufficient customers to make opening worth their while.
      Mr. Macdonald rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must get on.
      In a letter to all Members of Parliament representing Scotland, the Scottish Consumer Council made it clear that it supports the clause because it believes that it is a sensible extension of choice to consumers, allowing them greater freedom to decide when they wish to purchase alcohol.
      The introduction of the new law in 1976 did not result in any significant overall increase in alcohol consumption. A 1984 survey showed that consumption among men was virtually the same in 1984 as in 1976 and that an increase in women's drinking seemed to reflect the more relaxed attitude to their drinking.
      This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which matters of principle have been debated with great passion. Members have deeply held convictions on the issue and it is right and proper that the House should decide on a free vote. For my part, I believe that clause 17 should remain part of the Bill. It removes an anomaly and extends a new freedom to retailers and—much more importantly—to consumers, who will benefit from enhanced choice and more competitive prices. People who are concerned with potential public nuisance can be reassured that a battery of statutory and common law sanctions is already available and permits the police and licensing boards to take the appropriate action against those who might act irresponsibly. The clause represents steady and sensible progress. It is a reform consistent with current social attitudes and I commend it to the House as being in keeping with the spirit of the last year of the 20th century. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Darling: As usual, the Minister's response was not very satisfactory. It was longer than his response to the debate on extending aggravated trespass to the law of Scotland, but the content was not much better, which is a pity because, despite what he said, I agree with the conclusion that he reached.
      I represent the city centre in Edinburgh and, perhaps more than some other hon. Members, I have reason to know of the problems that arise because of the abuse of alcohol. I do not see much difference between meeting someone in the street who has had far too much to drink in a pub and meeting someone who has had far too much to drink from cans bought from an off-licence. The clinch point is that it is absurd that one can buy as much drink as one wants in a pub in Scotland and that one can buy drink to take home from a pub in Scotland on a Sunday, but one cannot buy it from a supermarket or other off-licence premises. That is an anomaly that ought to be ended.
      I understand the problems that exist in parts of Scotland with regard to off-licence premises. I am prepared to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and others said about that. My hon. Friend must also accept that the problems in Edinburgh and its city centre tend to arise not from off-licence premises but from fully licensed premises.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned the fact that many licensed premises are underneath tenemental property. In fact, 90 per cent. of my constituents live in such property and most of the pubs in Edinburgh are also under such property. That is where the problems arise.
      My conclusion is that the problem that we need to review is not off-licence premises in Scotland but the
      286
      licensing regime. We must face up to that fact. As many hon. Members said, it is not merely a problem on Sunday, but one that goes on for six days a week. If the clause is passed, it will be a problem that we shall have to deal with all of the time.
      It is high time that the House examined how the licensing laws operate. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends who say that it is probably the wrong place and the wrong Bill to do that, but the measure is before us tonight and we have to reach a judgment. It is a free vote and we are all entitled to express our opinions according to our experience and that of our constituents. That is how it ought to be.
      The licensing laws need to be examined as they are biased against the objectors—the ordinary members of the public. Licensees tend not only to have access to representation, which they can well afford, but rights of appeal; they have greater opportunities than ordinary objectors. It is high time that the balance was redressed.
      12 midnight
      I do not see why my constituents should have to put up with far too many late licence outlets that stay open until all hours of the morning when they also have to put up with people coming out of pubs and nightclubs late at night and causing disturbances. I have sympathy with people living next to off-licence premises where there is a problem, but we will not tackle that problem by banning everything for everyone all the time. That is a wrong response; it cannot be right as a matter of public policy.
      If there are problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead has said that there are certain problems with off-licence premises—the licensing boards should be given powers to stop shops from opening. At the moment they have great difficulty because they can be challenged if they are do not operate a consistent policy.
      I am prepared to let them be inconsistent; I am even prepared to do away with the normal standards of proof in some cases where there is a good suspicion that problems are occurring at certain premises, but that cannot be proved, even on the balance of probabilities. I am prepared to do that because the rights of ordinary citizens who live next door to licensed premises ought to be protected.
      However, I cannot accept that it is right to ban people from buying alcohol from supermarkets on a Sunday when at the same time, on the same day of the week, we let them go to the pub and drink as much as they want or buy alcohol to take home. That cannot be right; it is inconsistent. I accept that there is a problem. Let us deal with it through the licensing regime rather than by a blanket ban.
      Mr. Macdonald: I make no apology for detaining the House—or the Government Whip who seems in a hurry to conclude the debate—for a few minutes longer, not just because of the unacceptable approach, the back-door method of tackling the policy, but because the Minister failed to address one of the key points that I tried to put to him and that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
      We are talking about the objection to the Government's proposal. It is not simply a question of public order, or the nuisance and disturbance that having off-licences open creates in certain areas. That was discussed by many hon. Members. The Minister seemed to focus his entire reply, in an unsatisfactory way, on public order, but there is a

      287
      separate issue—the right of local communities to pursue, protect and defend a particular way of life and a particular set of values.
      The Minister knows the Western Isles very well. He has a great love and affection for them. One of the things that he likes about the Western Isles is the particular way of life there. The Minister and the Government are proposing to take away from the community in the islands the right to shape, determine and maintain that way of life.
      The Minister, in refusing any more interventions from me, was displaying a bit of a guilty conscience. He is familiar with the area. It is not just a question of freedom of choice for individuals, which is an important value, but the freedom of choice for communities. Communities should be able to pursue a culture and set of values that suit and benefit them and are attractive for others to observe and even visit. The Minister referred to the measure's value for tourism, but many tourists come to the Western Isles for the way of life there, especially the observance of the Sabbath, which is one of the major linchpins and attractions of the community in the islands.
      Although the measure may not result in off-licences opening in the Western Isles, the community will no longer have a defence against that happening. How can the Minister think that it is right, in communities like those in Lewis, Stornoway or Harris, for one individual to go against the wishes of the community? It is not a question of that individual going his own way without affecting the rest of the community as others do not have to open or man the shop or buy goods there. If a shop is open and being utilised, it immediately affects the surrounding community, and the way of life is irretrievably lost.
      The Minister knows the great effort that the community in the islands has made in recent years to preserve its way of life. He is also responsible for transport issues in Scotland and will know the uproar that was created when Caledonian MacBrayne proposed sailing a ferry service into Tarbert on Sundays. The outrage went extremely deep and, ultimately, Caledonian MacBrayne had to back off from its proposal. The Minister appreciates that aspect of life in the Western Isles, so why cannot he acknowledge that local communities, through their licensing board as has been suggested, should be able to exercise that key, vital say?
      It is no good the Minister referring to committees and saying that that is the position with which they came up and it should be standardised throughout Scotland. I am asking for the Minister's personal view of the matter. In his heart of hearts, he cannot oppose the suggestion in the amendment that was unfortunately not selected, but that is still open for the Government to pursue later in another place.
      I appeal to the Minister to think of the community that he loves to visit and consider whether it is right for it to retain that essential democratic ability to preserve its unique way of life.
      Mr. Wilson: I shall be extremely brief—in case the pubs shut.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on introducing the amendment. This robust debate has crossed party lines. We have had serious and well-argued disagreement about the amendment within the ranks of three of the Scottish parties. It is a tribute to the Labour,
      288
      Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that they have bothered to participate. There is one notable omission from the ranks on an issue that affects the lives of every Scottish citizen, for better or worse.
      The fact that we are able to have this debate and, hopefully, a free vote on the matter is healthy, and I hope that the outcome is the one that I favour. The important point is that the debate has crossed party lines because every hon. Member who has participated has different experiences to reflect.
      I was involved over many months with the Committee that considered the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, in which the matter was brought forward by the Government. Again, the divisions in that Bill crossed party lines. On that occasion the Government were obliged to back off because of a consensus in the Committee against the opening of off-sales premises on Sundays. The arguments that we have heard tonight were very much in the same vein.
      The charge that must be levelled against the Minister is that four years have passed since that Committee sat. I remember it well because it was during the time of the previous world cup. Four years ago, we had exactly the same debate, argument and dichotomy. We are talking not about one subject—whether all licensed premises in Scotland should be able to open on a Sunday—but the fact that there is a whole range of different types of premises to which different arguments apply.
      Of course it is sensible that, if one goes into a supermarket that is legally open on a Sunday, one should be able to buy a bottle of wine, or whatever. Of course it is sensible, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) says, that if one is visiting a distillery on a tourist bus, one should be able to buy the miniatures from that distillery. But, as was argued by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), and by the hon. Member for Ayr, there is a totally qualitatively different kind of problem in many areas of Scotland.
      The fact is that, on other issues that we debate, behind the facade of reasonableness of the case, other people are waiting to take advantage of something that is not at all reasonable—in areas where the facility is not wanted, the opening of off-licences from morning to night, which will be imposed on them for seven days of the week instead of six.
      The charge that must be levelled against the Government is that, in four years, they have done nothing to separate those arguments and come up with something that would be acceptable to everybody in the House, and in which some discretion was permitted or in which the difference in the arguments was recognised by the legislation. All that has happened is that, four years later, through a back door, the same blanket proposal comes forward, and we are having the same arguments again tonight. Because of that, I will vote against the amendment.
      Of course, if the legislation took account of the light and shade of the argument and the different circumstances that prevail, I would want there to be some Sunday off-sales in Scotland. But instead of that, the Government are trying to get through, on the basis of a reasonable approach, the unreasonable proposition that every off-sales premises in Scotland should be open. The Government have not taken account of any popular feeling. They have not taken account of the different arguments.

      289
      The arguments that the Minister adduced are perfectly good in some respects, but, as he knows—or certainly should know—they are not in others. I very much hope that the Government will learn this lesson tonight: for heaven's sake, take account of what people think. Go out and listen to the constituents who do not want this sort of thing on their doorstep seven days a week. Listen to people who want the facility, such as supermarkets, and then try to draw up some reasonably sensitive legislation that takes account of both points of view. They have failed to do so, so the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ayr deserves to be carried tonight.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: This subject revives happy memories of our late colleague, Gregor MacKenzie, the former right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen, who, I recall, enjoyed inviting his colleagues to join him in the Smoking Room from time to time for a small Christian refreshment. I certainly enjoy the produce of Belhaven brewery, or Glenkinchie distillery in East Lothian, in my home, on a Sunday from time to time, but find myself rather uncomfortably in the middle of the argument this evening.
      I accept the case for relaxing absurd regulations, and would be quite happy for local licensing boards to be able to allow appropriate businesses and premises to sell alcoholic drinks on a Sunday, but I am very worried about the prospect of passing a law that would require all off-licences to be allowed to open seven days a week. I think that there is a middle way. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that allowing all off-licences to sell alcoholic drinks seven days a week could cause a serious problem in many neighbourhoods: it could constitute a diabolical imposition on residents.
      12.15 am
      I think that local licensing boards should be allowed discretion. The point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others. It is a pity that we are not able to consider amendment No 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I am still concerned about the prospect of the legislation being passed as it stands without such a safeguard; but it would be possible for the Government to bring the idea back in the House of Lords.
      If the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking to enable local licensing boards to be given discretion by means of amendments tabled in the House of Lords, I shall be happy to leave the legislation in its present form, but in the absence of such an undertaking I feel that we have no choice but to accept the amendment; otherwise we shall end up with some very bad legislation for Scotland.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: To some extent, I have been stung into joining the debate by what I must describe as the Minister's rather inadequate response to a debate that has clearly demonstrated the considerable and legitimate anxiety felt by many people with direct experience of the consequences of the substantial change in the licensing law effected by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
      To those who have argued that it is time for another review of Scottish licensing law, I can only say that I consider their argument well founded: it is more than 20 years since the Clayson committee reported, and at least 16
      290
      years since the first legislative implementation of its recommendations. Anyone with any knowledge of the way in which the licensing trade has developed in Scotland will probably appreciate that there have been substantial changes, far beyond any of those contemplated by Dr. Clayson.
      One of the significant recommendations of the Clayson report which has not been acted on was that the radical solutions that it proposed should be subject to constant monitoring to ensure that the consequences of enshrining them in legislation were properly understood and evaluated. In view of that, I feel that the case for a further review is overwhelming.
      Some hon. Members have drawn attention to an anomaly: it is possible to go into a public house and buy off-sales liquor, but not to go into the off-sales outlet or licensed grocer next door and perform the same transaction. That anomaly was created when we allowed public houses to sell by way of off sales on Sundays. When the issue was under discussion in 1990, while we were debating the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, a number of people expressed considerable reservations about the piecemeal way in which the Government were proceeding, and emphasised the obvious fact that an anomaly was being created. We are now being asked not to remedy the original anomaly but to compound it. The Government have presented the House with an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that does not take proper account of its consequences.
      One of the most notable features of the debate has been the anxiety of individual hon. Members to argue that, given the circumstances of the communities that they represent, a blanket permission for all off-sales premises to open is inadequate. One could not but be impressed by the case advanced by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). It is not simply that the Western Isles are different from Hillhead, north-east Fife or Dundee; the point is that there may be significant differences even within those communities. One has only to consider the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead to realise that even within one area there are circumstances in which the opening of an off-sales premises on a Sunday might be entirely legitimate while in other circumstances it is likely to produce the adverse social effects to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) referred.
      The Government are failing to allow local licensing boards the opportunity to discriminate. However, they of course already allow them to discriminate in relation to the regular extension of permitted hours. When a licensing board determines permitted hours, it does not do so on a blanket basis throughout the area under its jurisdiction. Each outlet has to argue for the extension of permitted hours that it seeks, so that there already exists a substantial discretion in that regard.
      There is no evidence to suggest that, having been invested with that discretion, licensing boards have exercised it unreasonably. Indeed, all the evidence points to the fact that they have been entirely conscientious and reasonable in the exercise of a substantial discretion. If the Government are prepared to trust licensing boards on the regular extension of permitted hours—sometimes extensions are sought until 4 am—why are they not prepared to invest the same trust in the same democratically elected people to determine whether, in their jurisdiction, a particular off-sales outlet should be entitled to open on a Sunday?

      291
      I fear that the Minister gave no answer to that fundamental question, and for that reason, in addition to many others advanced in the debate, I am minded to support the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 108.

      Division No. 236]

      [12.21 am

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Amess, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barnes, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Bates, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beggs, Roy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Macdonald, Calum

      Booth, Hartley

      McFall, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McLeish, Henry

      Brazier, Julian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cohen, Harry

      Michael, Alun

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Morley, Elliot

      Dalyell, Tam

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

      Rendel, David

      Dixon, Don

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Eastham, Ken

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Elletson, Harold

      Salmond, Alex

      Etherington, Bill

      Skinner, Dennis

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Spellar, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Galbraith, Sam

      Wallace, James

      Galloway, George

      Wilson, Brian

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Graham, Thomas

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Home Robertson, John

      Mr. Phil Gallie and

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Mr. Jonathan Evans.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Alexander, Richard

      Canavan, Dennis

      Arbuthnot, James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Coe, Sebastian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Connarty, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Conway, Derek

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Darling, Alistair

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Devlin, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Dover, Den

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Duncan, Alan

      292

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Nelson, Anthony

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fatchett, Derek

      Patnick, Irvine

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Pickles, Eric

      Gale, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gorst, John

      Richards, Rod

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sims, Roger

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Sproat, Iain

      Illsley, Eric

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Ingram, Adam

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Steen, Anthony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sykes, John

      Knapman, Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Thomason, Roy

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Thumham, Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      Waller, Gary

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Watts, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Whittingdale, John

      McAllion, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      McKelvey, William

      Wood, Timothy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Merchant, Piers

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Mr. Bill Walker and

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mr. John Maxton.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Bill,as amended (in the Standing Committee),to be further considered this day.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    Ordered,
    That the provisions of paragraph (2)of Standing Order No.84(Constitution of standing committees),paragraph(1)of Standing Order No.86(Nomination of standing committees)and Standing Order No.101(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments,&c.)shall apply to the special Grant Report (Metropolitan Railway Grant)(House of Commons Paper No.370)as if it were a statutory instrument;and that the said Report be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker.]

Boxing (Brain Injuries)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
12.33 am
Mr. Jim Callaghan: As a young sports teacher, many years ago, I had serious doubts about the merits of boxing. As a result of those doubts I refused to organise boxing activities in the school. I have never regretted that decision.
I well remember, too, the answer given to me by the son of a former world champion when I asked him whether he would follow in the footsteps of his father and go into boxing. He replied, "Have you seen my father recently?" I had to admit that I had. That boy took up football and became a good soccer player.
Only when my attention was drawn to the present plight of Muhammad Ali was I totally converted with regard to the terrible hazards and tragedies connected with professional boxing. Muhammad Ali was known as "The Greatest"; in my view he is the greatest advertisement for the necessity to investigate the safety of boxing. One look at his condition is enough to register the insidious effect of a life spent absorbing blows to the head. His legs are leaden and his hands tremble. It is said that he has Parkinson's syndrome and that his condition is not due to boxing. However, I have video tapes of his later fights, which would suggest otherwise and that he took one punch too many. A former boxing fan said of him:
"I stood talking to Ali, embarrassed by his inarticulateness and deeply ashamed, as it was not his own superb body that had done this terrible thing. I had done it, too, as part of the crowd urging him on, applauding the blood.
I have not watched a boxing match since."
Subsequently, because of the impact that that left on me, on 25 September 1991 I asked the then Minister for Sport for his views and the intentions of his Department regarding professional boxing, given the then medical condition of a professional boxer, Mike Watson, following a contest between him and Chris Eubank. The Minister replied on 30 October 1991 and I shall paraphrase his answer. He said that the Government did not control boxing or any other sport in the country and, in the case cited, the responsibility lay with the British Boxing Board of Control. He went on to say that injuries occur in many sports where physical exertion is excessive, that what is paramount is that the risk is controllable and containable and that the medical safeguards in British boxing are among the most rigorous in the world.
He therefore did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an inquiry into the future of amateur or professional boxing. Nevertheless, he said that he took a serious view of what had happened and that he had asked the BBBC to provide him with a full account of the events and its conclusions about what action, if any, it regarded as necessary, including the need for a BBBC inquiry.
The Minister said that he would study what the board had to say very carefully and would encourage it to listen to practical suggestions from other experts as to how safety standards may be improved. He said that I might have known that, on 16 October, he chaired a meeting with the BBBC and a number of eminent medical specialists to discuss safety in boxing.
On 23 June 1993, I asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he had received a copy of the British
294
Medical Association's report into the risks associated with boxing and if he intended to set up an independent inquiry into those risks. He replied that his Department had obtained a copy of the report on its publication, but did not believe that the risks associated with boxing were sufficient to justify an inquiry. I have also asked the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister's Question Time, if he and his Government intended to ban boxing. The Prime Minister replied that they had no intention to ban boxing.
Last year and earlier this year, I tried to obtain a debate on the subject, but without any success. Tonight, I have been successful. I mention that because it may be thought that I called for the debate because of the recent death of another boxer. That is not so, as I have been trying for some time.
There have been several deaths in boxing over the years. They include those of Steve Watt, Johnny Owen and the Nigerian Young Ali. The most recent death in boxing in Britain occurred when Bradley Stone, aged 23, died after being stopped in the 10th round. It was Bradley Stone's second stoppage in the space of only 53 days. Where are the controls? In the past month, Michael Bentt has collapsed after losing his World Boxing Organisation crown. The grim toll of death and injury in boxing make it unworthy of being called a sport.
The British Medical Association has revealed that, since 1984, eight boxers have died and six have survived only after surgery, three with long-term brain damage, and that since 1945, 361 deaths have been recorded worldwide. As a result, professional boxing has been banned in Sweden, Ireland and Norway. The BMA wants it banned in this country and because of its medical research into boxing injuries, it has become a leading authority on the hazards of boxing. In 1982, a resolution was passed at the annual representatives meeting, which stated:
"That in view of the proven ocular and brain damage resulting from professional boxing, the Association should campaign for its abolition."
In response to the resolution, the board of science and education of the BMA set up a working party to review the evidence on brain and eye damage as a result of boxing injuries and to publish a report of its findings. In the final report published in 1984, it was concluded that damage occurred to the eye and the brain in both amateur and professional boxers. The report attracted strong opposition to a total ban from a number of sources, including the British Boxing Board of Control, the Amateur Boxing Association and the National Association of Boys' Clubs.
A further resolution was passed at the 1987 meeting. It stated:
"In view of the continuing serious ill effects on the health of boxers, this meeting requests the BMA to pursue the Government with renewed vigour until there is a ban on boxing and, until such time as this is achieved, believes that the TV coverage should include a statement of the damage which may result from boxing."
Since then, the BMA and individual members have continued to promulgate the evidence of harm caused by boxing. In 1992, the BMA set up a boxing steering group to review evidence on boxing published since 1984 and to make use of recent advances in methods of early detection of brain damage from head injuries. It again called for a total ban on all boxing.
In June 1993, the BMA produced a book called "The Boxing Debate", which I recommend anyone to read. It reviewed the existing evidence relating to boxing. The book analyses the mechanisms by which injury occurs to

295
the brain and the eye in boxing. It states that, during the course of a boxing match, the contestants receive a variable number of blows to the upper torso, arms and head, and that the blows land with widely different degrees of force. The heaviest blows may be as much as half a tonne, which is like being hit by a 12 lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20 mph.
In the case of such a blow hitting the head, the greatest amount of force of the blow is transmitted directly to the skull and its contents—the brain. Although training, skill and experience may enable the boxer to reduce the force —known as riding the punch—and may reduce the damage to the brain, cumulatively the punches can damage the brain and eyes. The structure within the skull also contributes to brain damage. The inner surface of the skull of a young adult male is not smooth; it has sharp projections. It is the tearing of the thin superficial veins and the surface damage to the brain as it collides with the skull and its sharp inward projections which give rise to acute subdural haematoma, which is responsible for the serious cerebral compression and death that occasionally follows a boxing match.
The report says that there are two main ways in which boxing may lead to structural damage to the brain. The first type of damage occurs as an acute episode in which one or more severe blows during a single fight lead to a loss of consciousness and occasionally to death. Death in the ring or in the days or weeks following the contest is usually attributable to acute haemorrhage. The second kind of damage tends to develop over a much longer period and is cumulative. It is associated with chronic neurological disorders, which are often seen in boxers.
Damage to the eye and brain occurs in both amateur and professional boxers, although it is doubtful whether participants or others involved in the sport fully appreciate the risks, especially the danger of delayed, cumulative brain damage. Neurological examination, using all the techniques available, may lead to the recognition of progressive brain damage and a recommendation that a boxer should retire from boxing, thus avoiding further damage. However, damage can be detected only after it has occurred; by then, it may be too late.
The approach to professional boxing is somewhat different from that to amateur boxing. The big business aspects of professional boxing are obviously tempting to a young man and the prospect of financial gain may cause him to ignore the risk to his health. While the dangers in amateur boxing are known, in 1987, the secretary of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, stated his belief that boxing should be removed from the Olympic games within the next 20 years. The BMA is on record as having said that it is grateful for the co-operation that it received from many experts and associations, particularly the Amateur Boxing Association. However, it said that it was disappointed at the lack of co-operation received from the BBBC and regretted the refusal of the BBBC to provide information, or even send representatives to its working party. That is to be regretted.
Hence, the BMA has said that there is no evidence to suggest that boxing is any safer now than when it began to campaign many years ago, and has called again for the
296
banning of boxing. I agree with the BMA and support its call. However, I have no doubt that the Minister will once again refuse that call.
We have reached an impasse, with the BMA on one side of the argument, the BBBC on the other side and the Minister in the middle. To make progress, I shall make several suggestions to the Minister.
If he will not ban boxing or conduct an inquiry into the dangers associated with the sport, will he ask all officials in all sports to take a leaf out of the actions taken by the Rugby Football Union? For some time, the Rugby Football Union has asked all affiliated clubs and schools to complete forms each year to help to collect data relating to RFU injuries and to send them to the RFU sports injuries administrator. It is an essential exercise which provides data on which to monitor and maintain acceptable safety standards. Information is required solely on those players who, through an injury that occurred in practice or a match, were incapacitated to the degree that their injury prevented them from playing for a minimum period of 21 days.
As a result, the RFU has built up a series of statistics for successive seasons and is now in a position to compare trends. For example, in the first year of its injuries working party, it was found that there was a high incidence of neck injury which caused much concern. The changes in the interpretation of the laws for under 19-year-old players, which were altered for the 1983–84 season, made a great difference. When the changes were studied by the international board, major alterations were made in the laws of the game and the incidence of neck injury fell significantly. The RFU is now looking elsewhere to reduce injury in its game.
In the light of that, could not the Minister ask all other sporting bodies to do the same, and so provide their governing bodies with accurate statistics which could be forwarded to the Minister's Department, thus enabling him to obtain accurate information and statistics which may help to lessen the hazards in all sports, including boxing? Will the Minister bring both sides together and chair a joint meeting with the BBBC, the ABA and the BMA to discuss ways forward and the collection of information and statistics over a period? That would be a move in the right direction and would break the impasse.
In the meantime, as a matter of urgency, could not the Minister suggest that measures be taken to make boxing safer by changing the rules so that points are awarded only for hitting the torso and eliminate blows to the head? There are such rules relating to hitting below the belt.
I also suggest that, as the damage suffered by boxers can be reduced dramatically if they are given enough oxygen and taken immediately to an appropriate hospital, specially qualified doctors skilled in the art of resuscitation should be at the ringside. While resuscitation should take place at the ringside and an ambulance should be on call, it is a sad fact that only 40 of Britain's 760 hospitals have neurosurgical units. The implication of this deficiency is all too obvious. Had such facilities been available to Michael Watson, the result might have been different. Again, boxers should be required to stay within range of the medical facilities for at least an hour after their bout.
As injuries can happen in a gym, regulations and resources are required to tackle those areas, too. Weigh-ins take place 24 hours before a fight and many boxers dehydrate to lose the last few pounds, which has a debilitating effect on the brain. The weigh-in should take place much earlier. Referees are also under instruction to

297
stop a fight when one man is unable to defend himself. Such action often comes too late and the instruction should be strengthened. Reforms in boxing are certainly needed before further calamities occur.
As one famous boxer said recently,
"Boxing damages your brain. Don't let anybody tell you different!"
I await the Minister's reply.
12.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his good fortune in securing the debate at this late hour. I shall begin by giving him an assurance that I shall certainly study carefully the helpful points he made in a thoughtful speech. In particular, I will draw the attention of the BBBC to what he has said and I will gladly have a look at the system which the RFU has put into practice. I thank him for his helpful speech on a subject on which it is difficult to say something new.
While the Government share his concern about the safety of boxers, we do not believe that the sport should be banned. First, I would like to say that British boxing suffered a tragic loss two weeks ago with the death of the super-bantamweight Bradley Stone, following his British title contest. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in offering sincere condolences to his family.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not yet have the full information on this incident, and I am therefore unable to comment substantively on the case. However, the general secretary of the BBBC has advised me that all the medical requirements appear to have been in place for the contest. The board is conducting an inquiry into the incident and has agreed to forward a report io me as soon as it becomes available.
Boxing is an established and properly regulated sport in this country at both amateur and professional level, and it has a wide following among the general public. It stretches back over hundreds of years and is now a major part of our country's sporting heritage. Some hon. Members may recall a most stimulating debate on boxing in another place on 4 December 1991 when the noble Lord Taylor of Gryfe called for a ban on professional boxing.
The Government's view on boxing remains as it was then. We believe strongly that in a free society, which this country thankfully enjoys, individuals should have the freedom to participate in a sport of their choice, so long as it is within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved. What is paramount is that the element of risk attached to boxing is controllable and that the proper medical safeguards are in place. BBBC medical safeguards are among the most rigorous in the world and are constantly under review.
Hon. Members with any knowledge of boxing will be aware that, following meetings in late 1991 between my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) —then the Minister for sport—the BBBC and a number of medical specialists, the BBBC not only strengthened its medical safeguards but converted them into firm regulations. I am well aware of the British Medical Association's report "The Boxing Debate" published in June 1993 reinforcing its call for a ban on boxing, and I met representatives from the BBBC in January to discuss its response to the BMA's report.
298
I know that the BBBC is already reviewing its research on methods of continual assessment of brain functions to detect possible chronic deterioration that may occur during a boxer's career. It is also considering the extension of a pilot scheme currently operating in Wales which is aimed at minimising acute brain injury by the compulsory attendance of an anaesthetist with the necessary equipment at the ringside. In addition, it has issued a special checklist of ocular pathology to improve an eye test for boxers.
Nevertheless, where safety is concerned, there is never any room for complacency. I am pleased to tell the House that the BBBC will shortly hold a meeting, at which—
Mr. Tom Pendry: Perhaps I can help the Minister and the House by saying that the meeting to which the Minister refers is to take place on the 24th of this month. I have helped to arrange the meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who as the House knows is an eminent neurologist, and two other brain surgeons—Dr. Sutcliffe, who was the surgeon in the case of the boxer who was referred, and Peter Hamlyn—have accepted invitations to meet the medical officer of the British Boxing Board of Control and his team. They are determined to see whether there are ways in which they can make the sport safer.
Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am glad to pay tribute to the valuable contribution that he has made not only to that meeting but to other aspects of boxing. As he said, the meeting will be attended by senior members of the BBBC's medical panel, including leading neurologists and neurosurgeons. He mentioned Mr. John Sutcliffe and Mr. Peter Hamlyn. Other independent experts and outsiders will also attend. I am glad that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is in his place.
I understand that the meeting will not only look at ways in which the unfortunate incident involving Bradley Stone might have been avoided but will examine what further medical and safety measures can practicably be introduced to protect the health of boxers. Some of the issues that they will consider include ways of monitoring the weight of boxers for at least one week prior to a contest and observation periods after contests.
However, there is absolutely no case for singling out boxing for a ban. To ban boxing would drive the sport underground, and remove boxers from the very safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, even if boxing were banned in this country, boxers could still compete overseas where the medical safeguards may not be so stringent.
Let me first deal with the question of fatalities. Figures provided by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that, from 1986 to 1992, there have been three deaths in England and Wales from boxing. Tragically, Mr. Stone has added to those statistics. In the same period, however, there have been 77 deaths in motor sports, 69 deaths in air sports, 54 deaths in mountaineering, 40 deaths in ball games and 28 deaths in horse riding.
I am also pleased to say that the statistics for injuries sustained from boxing show that some views expressed recently following the death of Mr. Stone are grossly exaggerated. For example, the Sports Council conducted an analysis into sports accidents based on the general household surveys of 1987, 1988 and 1989. A standardised "risk factor" for each sport was calculated by representing the number of sports accidents as a factor of the number of

299
occasions in which individuals participated in each sport. Sports were then placed in one of four categories, ranging from high to negligible risk. Hon. Members may be interested and may be surprised to know that boxing was placed in the negligible risk category along with golf and snooker.
The Government have no hesitation, however, in accepting that, sadly, there are instances in which long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. But boxing is not unique in this respect. The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any physically challenging activity, and to remove the risk would, for the most part, remove the challenge itself. Only last week, we sadly witnessed the tragic death of the jockey, Steve Wood, at Lingfield. The previous weekend, we were cruelly and vividly reminded of the risks involved in another challenging sport following the tragic deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger on the Imola track in San Marino.
Nevertheless, as I have said, no one can afford to be complacent about the issue of boxing safety. The Government believe strongly that the utmost attention must be paid to safety not just in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: May I explain to the Minister that the argument that he is making on risk is not quite correct? Boxing is not associated with a risk of brain damage. It is associated with a certainty of brain damage. It might be true that there is no certainty of death and that the risk of death is small, but there is an absolute certainty of brain damage. Every time a boxer is hit, the brain is damaged. That is cumulative. What is worrying is that the cumulative effects are now thought to be progressive.
Mr. Sproat: That is one view. Of course, it is not a view that is universally held.
Mr.Galbraith rose—
Mr. Sproat: I have only a few minutes left.
300
I believe that both the BBBC, which is the governing body for professional boxing, and the Amateur Boxing Association, which controls amateur boxing in Britain, are acutely aware of their respective responsibilities in protecting the health of boxers. They recognise that, like any physical contact sport, boxing has an element of risk attached to it. What is paramount is that the element of risk should be controllable and containable.
Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after contests and to monitor boxers for long-term medical problems. These include full medical examinations, with a detailed list of conditions that would preclude a boxer from holding a licence; CT scans; specialists' examinations; and automatic 28–day suspension for boxers losing inside the scheduled distance, with further medical examinations before they may re-enter the ring.
These standards underline the importance that the boxing authorities attach to medical issues. None the less, it is vital that the standards, however stringent, be kept under constant review, as there is always room for further improvement. As I said earlier, I shall remain in close contact with the BBBC, and I look forward to receiving a report following that body's deliberations on 24 May.
Some hon. Members, in the past, have claimed that boxing is repugnant and morally wrong, in that the sport deliberately encourages individuals to inflict injury on each other. This is a matter of judgment. However, I should like to make a couple of points very clear. Boxers in this country compete within the strictest of medical safeguards and regulations imposed by reputable governing bodies, and they do so under their own free will and within a sporting code that emphasises skill rather than aggression.
In conclusion, I hope that I have made it clear that, while the Government are not complacent about safety issues in boxing, we believe that it would be a gross infringement of civil liberties to prevent individuals from participating in a properly constituted sport of their choice. I hope that I have also shown that there is clear evidence that the boxing authorities in this country are determined to continue to make the sport as safe as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average length of time it takes from an application being made to the Immigration Appellate Authority to the date of the determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Once an application is made to the Immigration Appellate Authority, it is for the parties to signify when they are ready for hearing. The time taken to reach this stage varies between two and eight months. The first available hearing date at each of the IAA's centres as at 6 May 1994 is set out in the table.

  Centre

  Long appointment

  Short appointment

  Hatton Cross, West London

  9 September 1994

  27 July 1994

  Thanet House, London

  10 July 1994

  1 June 1994

  Birmingham

  18 August 1994

  17 August 1994

  Manchester

  17 August 1994

  17 August 1994

  Leeds

  1 July 1994

  21 June 1994

  Glasgow

  July 1994

  30 June 1994

  Once the case has been heard, the adjudicator's determination normally issues to the parties within six to eight weeks.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Security Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private security firms were employed by his Department in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available; and in each of these years (i) which sections of his Department employed these firms, (ii) which firms they were, (iii) what was the job for which they were employed and (iv) what was the value of the contract in each case.

  Mr. Howard
  I regret that there is no central record of information of private security firms employed by my Department. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on Tuesday 26 April,Official Report, column 98, for available information in respect of security companies employed by my Department.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his specific proposals in regard to his promise of specific action to help families of murder victims which he announced in news release No. 76/94 on 20 April.
  72
  Mr. Maclean
  Our specific proposals were set out in the news release to which the hon. Member has referred. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, columns 183–84, if he will publish the name of the executive search agency used to recruit the prisons ombudsman, and the amount of money that they were paid for this.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The executive search agency used to recruit the prisons ombudsman was Coopers and Lybrand Executive Resourcing, it was paid £20,332.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce pilot schemes on electronic tagging this year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill includes provision for the introduction of electronically monitored curfew orders in selected areas; and the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill explained the intention to conduct pilot trials accordingly. Subject to parliamentary approval of this provision, I propose to make curfew orders available to the courts on a pilot basis, starting in the new year. Manchester is one of three areas in which such trials might take place.

  European Elections
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give full details of the arrangements he has made for publicising the new arrangements affecting those eligible to vote at the European elections in June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 25 February,Official Report, columns 508–9. All the measures noted in that reply have now been completed.

  Police Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries and the number of police officers from each of those countries—from which police officers are being trained by police authorities at the present time in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information of this nature is not held centrally and could be obtained only at dispropor-tionate cost.

  Asylum Applications (Poland)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Poland have applied for political asylum since 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994, 86 nationals of Poland, excluding dependants, applied for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Secure Training Centres, North Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the new secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders are to be located in north Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  No secure training centres are to be located in north Wales.

  Prison Births
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies were born in prisons in England and Wales in each year since 1987; how many of the mothers were handcuffed at the time of giving birth; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 10 May 1994:
  Births to women serving prison sentences in each year since 1987.
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many babies were born in prisons in England and Wales in each year since 1987; how many of the mothers were handcuffed at the time of giving birth.
  The annual reports on the work of the Prison Service until 1991–92 record the number of women temporarily removed to outside hospital for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. Figures are now published in the annual report of the Director of Health Care for Prisoners. The figures are:

  Number

  1987–88

  75

  1988–89

  63

  1989–90

  74

  1990–91

  65

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  29

  In addition there were three deliveries within Prison Service establishments:

  Number

  1987–88

  1

  1988–89

  2

  We are aware of only one birth to date during which the mother was handcuffed.

  Police, Peterlee
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were deployed in the Peterlee sub-division in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  22

  1990

  30

  1991

  37

  74

  Year

  Number

  1992

  41

  1993

  40

  Immigration (Exceptional Leave to Remain)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in each of the last five years, including the current year to date, an application for renewal of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom has been refused; and how many of these refusals were after one year's exceptional leave and how many were after four years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Precise figures are not available, but in each of the four years 1990–93, the number of asylum applicants refused an extension of exceptional leave does not exceed a figure of the order of 15. Provisional information for the first quarter of 1994 indicates a similar annual level in 1994 to date.

  The available information suggests that the majority of the refusals were after one year with exceptional leave.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently being held in police cells in the north Wales police force area; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners are currently being held in police cells in the North Wales police force area.
  No prisoners are currently being held in police cells in the North Wales area.

  Cardiff Prison
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce overcrowding at Cardiff prison; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Cardiff prison.
  The certified normal accommodation for Cardiff prison is 253. On 5 May 1994 311 prisoners were held at Cardiff. This was 29 fewer than Cardiff's operational capacity of 340. Operational capacity is the total number of prisoners which an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime.
  Enabling work has recently commenced at Cardiff Prison in connection with the construction of new accommodation. The new wing, which is scheduled for completion in mid-1996, will provide 196 additional places.

  Prison Service Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what members of senior prison service personnel working in the Prison Service Agency received bonus payments in 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  Eight senior members of the Prison Service received bonus payments linked to performance in 1993.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individuals and amounts paid in 1992–93 to compensate staff for the decline in house prices following transfer in public interest, with the original place of work and the new place of work which qualified each individual to the compensation.

  Mr. Howard
  The numbers of staff concerned and the total sums paid by way of advances of salary and special payments were given in reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 25 February,Official Report, column 507. It would not be appropriate to provide details of the financial affairs of named individuals.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 127, if he will list the general and local statutory instruments made since 1 November 1993 up to the end of February according to the Ministries responsible for them.

  Mr. Newton
  Further disagregation of the information given in my answer of 8 March could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department uses Internet to exchange information electronically with the European Commission, industry, and academic bodies involved in research. It does not use Internet as a way of putting information in the public domain, and has no plans to do so.

  Cross-channel Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 512, what proposals the electricity industry has made to his Department for expanding the capacity of the cross-channel electricity interconnector.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people in whole time equivalents were employed at the Atomic Energy Authority, distinguishing the police force from other employees, in each of the last three years and at April 1994.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  AEA constabulary

  Other AEA

  Total

  31 March 1991

  587

  9,056

  9,643

  31 March 1992

  538

  8,630

  9,168

  31 March 1993

  528

  7,494

  8,022

  31 March 1994

  491

  7,057

  7,548

  (Part-timers counted as half).

  Cellular Phone Networks
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the practice of cellular networks of charging callers for connection to their network when the recipient is unable to take the call; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received no representations concerning charges made by operators for recorded messages, but I understand that the Director General of Telecommunications has received some. The Office of Telecommunications is exploring with the network operators how the level of customer satisfaction with recorded message services can be improved.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasion the European Council of Ministers last discussed the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 29 April,Official Report, columns 348–49.

  Spirits
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislative changes he intends to propose to amend the quantities in which spirits may be sold for consumption on licensed premises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My noble Friend Lord Strathclyde has today laid before Parliament the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 1994 and the Measuring Equipment (Capacity Measures) (Amendment) Regulations 1994. The order has been laid for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The regulations have been made before laying and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  Current legislation provides that gin, rum, vodka and whisky may be served in a quantity of ¼ gill, ⅕ gill, ⅙ gill, or 25 ml and that the three imperial quantities be phased out by the end of this year. The new legislation will allow a second metric quantity of 35 ml and thereby allow those

  77
  licensees—principally in Scotland—who, at present, sell spirits in either ¼ or ⅕ gill to continue to serve a more generous measure.

  Nuclear Installations (Policing)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are made for the policing of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant and related installations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: THORP and related installations are part of British Nuclear Fuels plc's Sellafield site and the policing arrangements that apply to the Sellafield site also apply to THORP.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to maintain the Atomic Energy Authority police as a public body under public control in the event of the privatisation of establishments that the force currently polices.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on 17 February 1994, Official Report, columns 922–24.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters, subject to the Blelloch inquiry into the Ministry of Defence Police, also relate to the future structure and complement of the Atomic Energy Authority police.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The Blelloch inquiry is concerned solely with the Ministry of Defence police and is not due to publish its full report until June 1994. Until my Department has received and studied the report I am not in a position to comment on any possible implications there might be for the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are made for the policing of UK Nirex Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: No specific policing arrangements are applied to UK Nirex Ltd.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to announce further proposals concerning the supply of newspapers; what representations he has received on his Department's final inquiry up to 31 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales identified certain practices of wholesalers as operating against the public interest. I have therefore proposed making a statutory order prohibiting these practices. A wide range of views has been received during the period for submission of written representations on the proposed order, which ended on 31 March. My officials are now holding a final series of meetings with representative parties from the industry to discuss their representations, both on the order and on the possible alternative of an industry code of practice backed by statutory undertakings. I hope to announce my final decision as soon as possible, once I have had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the consultation process.

PRIME MINISTER

  ANZAC Day
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 28 April,Official Report, column 244, if he will consider the banning of traffic in Whitehall during the period of time taken on ANZAC day for the laying of wreaths and the silent tribute.

  The Prime Minister
  Under the terms of the sessional orders, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is required, during the Session of Parliament, to keep the streets leading to and from the Houses of Parliament free and open. Any proposal to amend the sessional orders would be a matter for this House and another place.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which the Cabinet Office has been engaged since 1980.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The Cabinet Office has undertaken no privatisation since 1980 and consequently has incurred no expenditure on consultants in connection with it.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister what have been the costs incurred by his office in(a) providing legal advice to witnesses appearing before the Scott inquiry, (b) drawing up evidence to be submitted to the Scott inquiry, (c) officials and legal advisers attending the Scott inquiry and (d) any other related costs.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 May 1994]: The costs under (a) to (c) are unquantifiable. No legal or other help was provided from outside the Government. The costs therefore consisted in the time of myself and Sir Robin Butler, who appeared as witnesses, and of the officials who gave support as part of their normal duties.

  Under (d), the cost of the Cabinet Office liaison unit since December 1992, including the cost of supplying documents from 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office to the inquiry, has been approximately £230,000.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of drought problems in Ethiopia; and what is being done by the Government and the European Union to combat these problems.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  More than 6 million people are estimated to be at risk from drought. 1994 emergency food aid needs are now estimated at nearly 800,000 tonnes. Since October 1993, Britain has committed 30,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid to Ethiopia; 15,000 tonnes has already been delivered and a further 4,000 tonnes will arrive this month. The European Commission has also earmarked 130,000 tonnes; 50,000 tonnes will arrive this month. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development wrote to major donors in March highlighting Ethiopia's needs and urging an early response.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Nations or aid organisations are now visiting or operating from Dilling and Kadugli in Sudan; and what information has been gathered from their work about conditions in the Nuba mountains.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Children's Fund have established a small base at Kadugli, supplemented by short-term visits. World Food Programme has limited access via El Obeid for its food aid programme. The Food and Agriculture Organisation seeds programme in Kordofan plans to include Kadugli.

  The Save the Children Fund (USA), CARE International and FAR—Fellowship for African Relief—have mandates agreed with the Government of Sudan which cover Dillinge and Kadugli but specific projects have yet to be implemented.

  A United Nations agencies assessment mission in February reported food aid needs around Kadugli and Dillinge of around 300 tonnes per month for about 25,000 people. Non-food needs included drinking water, supplementary feeding, blankets, medicines and education facilities. A recent nutrition survey of children in the indigenous population and displaced camps indicated worsening levels of malnutrition of up to 19 per cent. UNICEF and WFP are urgently seeking to address these needs.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the reservations of the Sudan People's Liberation Army about signing a draft agreement in Nairobi with the Sudanese Government for the distribution of humanitarian aid; and what assessment he has made of the effect of these proposals on international aid agencies, with particular reference to British based agencies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that the SPLA raised a number of objections to four of the five proposed relief routes which pass through territory controlled by its forces. Talks between the parties are still continuing and a United Nations Operation Lifeline Sudan statement is expected next week.
  80
  International aid agencies, including British-based agencies, have reported no major effects on their relief operations as a result of the current talks. They are continuing to press to maintain and improve access to areas in need, although land routes are now being affected by the onset of the rainy season. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Bakassi Peninsula
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the national identity of the Bakassi peninsula; and when he last had discussions on this with the Governments of Nigeria and Cameroon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is a matter of great concern that there should be a dispute between two countries with which we maintain close relations. We have urged both the Nigerian and Cameroonian authorities to seek a peaceful solution but made it clear that we take no position on the claims of either side.

  The subject was raised most recently during our high commissioner's farewell call on the Nigerian Head of State on 26 April, and with Cameroon when special envoy Ironi called on my noble friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 28 March.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects receiving humanitarian and development aid from the Overseas Development Administration and European Union in Somalia; and how this is distributed between the various regions of Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information on humanitarian assistance projects funded by Britain since January 1993 and by the European Commission during 1993, showing implementing agencies and regions assisted, has been placed in the libraries of both Houses. The United Kingdom information includes food aid. Britain's bilateral development programme to Somalia was suspended in 1991.

  In 1993 the European Commission also provided 33,000 tonnes of food aid worth £14 million and funded rehabilitation projects worth £2.3 million across Somalia. A new European Commission rehabilitation programme for Somalia worth nearly £30 million was approved in December 1993. Specific project proposals are currently under preparation.

  Information on projects funded by other EU member states is not available.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimate of the number of refugees from Rwanda who are now in Tanzania.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, some 50,000 Rwandese refugees have remained in Tanzania following flows into that country over many years beginning in the 1950s. Some 20,000 more arrived following the events of early April and an estimated
  81
  250,000 crossed the border over a 24-hour period around 28 April. Since then, UNHCR workers report—as of 9 May—that a further 150-200 people have arrived by boat each day. Owing to the number of refugees and their emergency needs, UNHCR has not yet undertaken a comprehensive registration exercise.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given by the Government and the European Union to assist Tanzania to cope with refugees from Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 6 April 1994, Britain has committed £3.35 million bilaterally of humanitarian assistance for Rwandan refugees in the region, of which £1.75 million is for those in Tanzania. Other EU countries and the European Commission have announced nearly £2 million-worth of assistance so far for Rwandan refugees in the region, including Tanzania.

  EU Development Ministers discussed the situation in Rwanda on 6 May and have asked political directors to consider, at their meeting today, the possibility of an EU mission to the countries bordering Rwanda to examine the problems caused by the flows of refugees.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Members' Smoking Room
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment he has made of the new shift hours and arrangements for staff in the Members' Smoking Room from 11 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  In accordance with established practice I shall ask the Director of Catering Services to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee, what changes are proposed in the hours of opening of the Members' Smoking Room; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Catering Committee has agreed to endorse the proposal made by the Refreshment Department that the Members' Smoking Room should continue to open at 11 am and should normally close 15 minutes after the rising of the House, rather than one hour after the rising of the House as at present. If the House rises after midnight, the Smoking Room will close when the House adjourns. This change reflects the pattern of usage experienced over a considerable period of time, but will be subject to further review as necessary.

  Unfair Dismissal Proceedings
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission how many personnel and in which departments within the Palace of Westminster have taken the House authorities to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal; and how many cases have been won and at what cost to the Exchequer in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 82
  14 April Official Report, column 259 which describes the one case since 1989 concerning a member of staff of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS.

  Falklands
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he visited the minefields during his recent visit to the Falkland islands and what is his assessment of the practicability of the mines being removed by current technology.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not visit a minefield during his visit.

  Following the Argentine offer to pay for mine clearance, we are still looking at the practical aspects to see if the means exist to clear the mines to an acceptable level.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Community countries have been fined for not complying with directives or regulations and have not yet paid the fine.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There have not yet been instances of member states being fined for failure to comply with European Community directives or regulations. The power of the European Court of Justice to impose such fines is a new one, introduced in the Maastricht treaty following a British initiative.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 427, which firm of consultants was joined by a civil servant from his Department in 1990; and how many contracts they have undertaken for his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1990 a retired civil servant from my Department joined Market Access International as an independent consultant. Neither the diplomatic wing nor the Overseas Development Administration has awarded any contracts above £10,000 to this firm since 1990. No central records are kept for contracts below £10,000.

  Belize
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between the United Kingdom and(a) the United States and (b) Mexico on guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Belize.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made it clear to the Belize Government that we stand ready to participate in any consultations that they may request on Belize's future security, and that we are prepared to play our part in any consultations that would lead to an appropriate response should the security of Belize be threatened in the future. It would not be right for me to comment on any discussions with other countries.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what arrangements have been made in the forthcoming European elections for the people of Gibraltar to be represented in the European Parliament.

  (2) if he will make a statement on the electoral representation of the people of Gibraltar in the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Annexe II of the EC Act on direct elections of 1976 limits to the United Kingdom itself the franchise for elections to the European Parliament. It follows that Gibraltar will not be formally represented in the new European Parliament.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence and the Government of Gibraltar on the effect of proposed cuts in military and defence personnel in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are frequent and close consultations at ministerial and official levels with the MOD and the Government of Gibraltar. We are conscious of Gibraltar's economic difficulties and of the need to develop alternatives to the MOD presence. We have therefore established a joint economic forum with a remit to explore the possibilities. It met for the first time on 15 March, and included FCO, MOD and Government of Gibraltar representatives.

HEALTH

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS estate code was last revised; and what plans she has to update it.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest revision of the estate code series of documents was published in October 1993. These were, "Strategic Asset Management", "Estate Investment Planning", "Analysis of Estate Performance" and "Asset Maintenance". Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library.

  Detailed guidance of this kind frequently requires updating and supplementary advice is issued from time to time for that purpose.

  Further documents are planned to be issued later this year on:

  NHS Trust Property Management

  Listed Buildings

  Environments for Quality Care.

  Old Peoples Homes
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) old peoples homes in the ownership of North Yorkshire county council, (b) people which can be accommodated in these homes, (c) places occupied and (d) shared bedrooms; and what was the cost for each resident in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. Information is not available centrally to enable the costs of residential placements in local authority homes situated within North Yorkshire to be calculated.
  84

  North Yorkshire: Local authority staffed residential homes for elderly people,1 places, and residents

  As at 31 March

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of homes

  46

  42

  41

  Number of places

  1,823

  1,612

  1,546

  Number of residents

  1,566

  1,371

  1,296

  Places not in single rooms

  657

  442

  366

  1 Includes homes primarily for elderly or elderly mentally infirm people.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total percentage of savings in 1991–92 of general practitioner fundholders used for(a) clearing waiting lists, (b) providing equipment and (c) improving practice premises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas, including ensuring that efficiency savings are used to improve services for patients.

  Mortality Trends
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the trends in mortality of the 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of most deprived and most prosperous electoral wards for the latest 10 years for which information is available.

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

  Health Survey
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 18 April,Official Report, column 399, if she proposes to invite the social surveys division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to include income and socio-economic status questions in the 1994 and 1995 health surveys for England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1994 health survey for England has been running continuously since January and, as in previous years, is collecting information relating to a range of socio-economic indicators such as social class, employment, housing, marital status, household type and ethnic group. These indicators currently meet data needs within the limited space available for such questions.

  The 1994 and 1995 surveys are being carried out by Social and Community Planning Research in conjunction with University college, London.

  Counselling
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the national health service has spent on counselling in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost of counselling of staff on patients is not calculated separately on a national basis.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 600, if she will now publish the information on medical negligence claims for 1992–93.
  85
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information supplied by national health service bodies on the number of cases settled and on the total costs of damages awarded together with legal costs is shown in the table. The information is incomplete because not all NHS bodies have submitted returns.

  1992–93

  Region

  Cases

  Cost £

  Northern

  344

  3,395,500

  Yorkshire

  49

  1,720,000

  Trent

  105

  2,952,700

  East Anglian

  37

  3,294,700

  North West Thames

  183

  6,209,500

  North East Thames

  76

  1,624,200

  South East Thames

  117

  5,714,042

  South West Thames

  64

  2,542,700

  Wessex

  72

  681,100

  District nurses, health visitors, community psychiatric nursing and hospital nursing and midwives in central, north, south east and west Birmingham DHA areas at 30 September 1983 to 1992 Whole-time equivalents

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Community psychiatric nursing

  Hospital nurses and midwives

  Practice nurses (Birmingham FHSA at 1 October)

  1983

  160

  190

  20

  9,740

  39

  1984

  160

  190

  20

  9,680

  436

  1985

  190

  200

  40

  9,750

  62

  1986

  190

  220

  50

  9,550

  44

  1987

  180

  230

  70

  9,630

  50

  1988

  180

  220

  70

  9,490

  68

  1989

  210

  220

  80

  9,550

  86

  1990

  220

  220

  90

  9,500

  123

  1991

  220

  220

  90

  9,660

  140

  1992

  210

  210

  90

  9,660

  177

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Agency nurses are excluded.

  3. In 1992 there were approximately 18,300 project 2000 nurses in England. 4 At 1 July.

  Surgical Patients (Follow-up and After-care)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether hospital trusts that manage area hospitals are fulfilling their responsibilities over follow-up monitoring and necessary after-care of patients who have undergone surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is for individual health authorities and, where relevant, general practitioner fundholders, who purchase health care, to ensure they have effective arrangements in place to monitor health services in accordance with the terms of contracts, including monitoring the adequacy of out-patient clinics, and patients' progress following surgery, and the provision of community services to meet the needs of discharged patients.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are contracted for more than 83 hours per week in each hospital in each of London's regional health authortities; and how many have regularly worked more than 83 hours per week since 1 January 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 31 March 1994, the number of junior doctors and dentists in London regional health authorities, contracted to work for more than an average of 83 hours a week, was reported to be:
  86

  Region

  Cases

  Cost £

  Oxford

  113

  917,100

  South Western

  56

  3,517,300

  West Midlands

  165

  3,660,700

  Mersey

  192

  3,621,900

  North Western

  160

  4,456,600

  Special Health Authorities

  5

  752,100

  Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, health visitors and hospital nurses there were in Birmingham in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Number

  North East Thames

  0

  North West Thames

  1

  South East Thames

  5

  South West Thames

  4

  Total

  10

  Information on individual hospitals and on hours of work is not available centrally.

  NHS Pensioner Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the key business targets for the National Health Service Pensions Agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am pleased to announce that I have approved the National Health Service Pensions Agency key business targets for 1994–95. These challenging targets covering customer service are shown in the table.

  Key Customer Service Targets

  Product and Clearance Standard

  Proposed Target Percentage

  Increase on 1993–94 Achievement Percentage

  Pension Awards

  Within 4 weeks of receiving application from employer

  95

  —

  Within 8 weeks of receiving application from employer

  199

  —

  87

  Product and Clearance Standard

  Proposed Target Percentage

  Increase on 1993–94 Achievement Percentage

  Pension Estimates (Practitioner)

  reduction of timescale by 16 per cent.

  Within 5 weeks of receiving request

  80

  reduction of percentage cleared by 13 per cent.

  Within 8 weeks of receiving request

  199

  +1

  Pension Estimates (Non-Practitioner)

  Within 4 weeks of receiving request

  95

  +2

  Within 8 weeks of receiving request

  199

  —

  Transfer Payments

  Within 8 weeks of receiving application

  199

  —

  Transfer Estimates

  Within 8 weeks of receiving application

  199

  +27

  Correspondence

  Cleared within 4 weeks

  100

  +2

  1 Achievement not within total control of Agency, 100 per cent target is considered unattainable.

  Efficiency Gains

  Ensure that the Agency's expenditure is contained within agreed running costs and other cash limits and deliver at least 5 per cent. efficiency gains by 31 March 1995.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of the age of a patient being taken into account by a general practitioner or a general practitioner practice when determining whether to accept a new patient on to their lists; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Hospital Closures, Birmingham
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health

  (1) if she will list the individuals and organisations which submitted written objections to the closure of the Royal orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham (a) during the West Midlands regional health authority's formal consultation on the proposed closure during 1992 and (b) prior to her decision of February 1993 to approve the closure;

  (2) if she will list the individuals and organisations which submitted written objections to the closure of the accident and emergency unit in Birmingham during (a) the West Midlands regional health authority's formal consultation on the proposed closure during 1992 and (b) prior to her decision of February 1993 to approve the closure;

  (3) on what date in February 1993 she agreed the closure of the accident and emergency unit in Birmingham;

  (4) on what date in February 1993 she agreed the closure of the Royal orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham.

  Mr. Sackville
  South Birmingham health authority was responsible for consulting on the proposal to close the Birmingham accident hospital and the Royal orthopaedic 88
  hospital and the consequential transfer of services elsewhere within the South Birmingham acute unit. In seeking the agreement to the reconfiguration proposals, South Birmingham health authority prepared a paper analysing responses to the consultation exercise for the board of the west midlands regional health authority.

  This was considered at a meeting held in November 1992. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, Chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority, for specific details.

  We have received a number of letters from various organisations about the closure of the Birmingham accident and Royal orthopaedic hospitals. In October 1992, a petition was received by the Department opposing the closure of the Royal orthopaedic hospital.

  The Department of Health agreed the closure of these hospitals on 1 February 1993.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the status of the letter dated 24 March sent by Tom Luce of her Department to inspection unit managers on the regulation of residential care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  Consultative.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available the latest figures on the cost of registering and inspecting residential care and nursing homes for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the detail requested. Local authorities have provided returns showing their gross costs of registering and inspecting residential care homes run by private or voluntary organisations under the Registered Homes Act 1984 in 1991–92—the latest year for which data are available. The data do not cover children's homes. Local authorities do not register or inspect nursing homes. Local authorities do not provide separate returns on the cost of inspecting local authority-run homes.

  Costs of registering and inspecting residential care homes run by private or voluntary organisations

  Costs in 1991–92 in £'000s

  Local authority

  Cost

  Avon

  380

  Bedfordshire

  56

  Berkshire

  230

  Buckinghamshire

  132

  Cambridgeshire

  280

  Cheshire

  347

  Cleveland

  150

  Cornwall

  1—

  Cumbria

  122

  Derbyshire

  144

  Devon

  743

  Dorset

  250

  Durham

  151

  East Sussex

  1—

  Essex

  869

  Gloucestershire

  140

  Hampshire

  589

  Hereford and Worcester

  241

  Hertfordshire

  174

  Humberside

  227

  Isle of Wight

  210

  Kent

  533

  Lancaster

  725

  Leicester

  226

  Lincolnshire

  153

  89

  Local authority

  Cost

  Norfolk

  377

  Northamptonshire

  168

  Northumberland

  15

  Doncaster

  110

  Rotherham

  33

  Sheffield

  60

  Gateshead

  71

  Newcastle

  129

  North Tyneside

  76

  South Tyneside

  54

  Sunderland

  143

  Birmingham

  371

  Coventry

  135

  Dudley

  1—

  Sandwell

  111

  Solihull

  1—

  Walsall

  1—

  Wolverhampton

  127

  Bradford

  187

  Calderdale

  42

  Kirklees

  89

  Leeds

  311

  Wakefield

  24

  City of London

  1—

  Camden

  52

  Greenwich

  1—

  Hackney

  142

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20

  Islington

  45

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32

  Lambeth

  1—

  North Yorkshire

  311

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  Oxfordshire

  159

  Shropshire

  161

  Somerset

  222

  Staffordshire

  177

  Suffolk

  203

  Surrey

  1—

  Warwickshire

  1—

  West Sussex

  323

  Wiltshire

  302

  Isles of Scilly

  1—

  Bolton

  79

  Bury

  47

  Manchester

  166

  Oldham

  153

  Rochdale

  60

  Salford

  193

  Stockport

  97

  Tameside

  127

  Trafford

  1—

  Wigan

  1—

  Knowsley

  1—

  Liverpool

  170

  St. Helens

  63

  Sefton

  1—

  Wirral

  208

  Barnsley

  1—

  Lewisham

  137

  Southwark

  93

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  Wandsworth

  35

  Westminster

  1—

  Barking and Dagenham

  6

  Barnet

  85

  Bexley

  1—

  Brent

  75

  Bromley

  59

  Croydon

  261

  Ealing

  103

  Enfield

  131

  Haringey

  144

  Harrow

  162

  Havering

  144

  Hillingdon

  5

  Hounslow

  90

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  71

  90

  Local authority

  Cost

  Merton

  60

  Newham

  132

  Redbridge

  103

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  22

  Sutton

  23

  Waltham Forest

  70

  1 No information provided.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average cost of a tribunal under the Registered Homes Act 1984; and what is its average duration;

  (2) what provision is made to compensate local authorities for the cost of tribunals under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Bowis
  The average duration of Registered Homes tribunal cases in 1992 and 1993 was just over four days. Information which would show the average cost of such hearings is not available centrally. However costs to local authorities in relation to such appeals are included in the cost of their duties under the Registered Homes Act 1984 reported to the Department. The level of fees payable by home owners will therefore take into account the cost involved.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to modify the requirement for the inspection of residential care and nursing homes, except small homes, at least twice a year.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have at present no specific proposals. We shall consult more widely if we decide to bring forward proposals to improve existing arrangements, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable residents.

  Health System
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 22 March,Official Report, column 125, what evidence has been drawn to his attention within the NHS of the existence of a two-tier health system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of the treatment by national health service chiropodists of the residents of independent sector residential and nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of the national health service to provide chiropody to people who need it irrespective of where they live.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what consideration he has given to the potential conflict of interest created by the appointment of Mr. Gummer as chairman of the Arts Council national lottery advisory panel, in the light of the appointment of Shandwick Communications as advisers to a bidder for the national lottery franchise;
  91
  (2) if he will seek information on which bidders for the national lottery franchise are advised by companies in which Mr. Gummer, chairman of the Arts Council national lottery advisory panel, has a financial interest.

  Mr. Brooke
  Mr. Gummer is a chairman and chief executive of Shandwick Communications, a public relations company which is advising one of the companies that have applied to run the National Lottery.

  The operation of the lottery and the distribution of lottery funds are entirely separate and distinct functions. The successful applicant to run the lottery will have no function in the distribution of lottery funds; the Arts Council, supported by its national lottery advisory panel, as a distributor of the national lottery proceeds, will play no part in the running of the national lottery. There is therefore no real or potential conflict of interest.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what instructions he has given to the Director-General of the Office of the national lottery to disqualify bids from companies where there is prima facie evidence of conflicts of interest involving their directors or advisers.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. The Director General of Oflot has a statutory duty under section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to ensure fitness and propriety in the running of the national lottery and must take account of any matters he deems appropriate to fulfil that duty.

  In addition, section 5(4) of the Act states that the Director General of Oflot shall not grant a licence to run the lottery unless he is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper body, and section 6(4) states that he should not grant a licence to a body to promote a lottery that forms part of the national lottery unless he is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper body.

  Motor Sports Promotion
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 425, what is his estimate of the amounts spent in the United Kingdom on motor sports advertising and promotion.

  Mr. Brooke
  These figures are not available. The sponsorship figures provided under the terms of the current voluntary agreement do not include the international sponsorship of motor racing which benefits this country.

  Sports Sponsorship (Tobacco Companies)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 425, what was the maximum amount in cash terms of allowable expenditure on sports sponsorship by tobacco manufacturers under the terms of the voluntary agreement in each of the years given in the table; and what are his projections of the maximum amounts allowable for the next five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  The maximum expenditure by tobacco manufacturers on sports sponsorship allowed under the current voluntary agreement is based on the expenditure in 1985–86, increased in line with inflation. The values, rounded to the nearest £1,000, are as follows:
  92

  £

  1985–86

  8,252,000

  1986–87

  8,582,000

  1987–88

  8,881,000

  1988–89

  9,580,000

  1989–90

  10,357,000

  1990–91

  11,210,000

  1991–92

  11,662,000

  No projections have been made for the next five years.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 425, if he will publish the full returns submitted to his Department by the tobacco manufacturers.

  Mr. Brooke
  The full returns, submitted on behalf of the Tobacco Advisory Council, are as follows:

  Year

  Fees to organizers/governing bodies £

  Costs of advertising/promotional material £

  1985–86

  5,635,000

  2,617,000

  1986–87

  5,887,000

  1,812,000

  1987–88

  5,523,000

  388,000

  1988–89

  5,004,000

  325,000

  1989–90

  6,596,000

  657,000

  1990–91

  6,878,000

  752,000

  1991–92

  8,294,000

  687,000

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 425, what definition of expenditure on sports sponsorship the Government use when requiring tobacco manufacturers to provide information under the terms of the voluntary agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Paragraph 7 of the voluntary agreement clearly defines the information that tobacco manufacturers are required to provide. A list of recognised sporting activities is at appendix 2 to the agreement. Any doubts over the interpretation of the voluntary agreement would be resolved between the tobacco industry and the Minister for Sport.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 425, what is his estimate of the total expenditure on sports sponsorship in the United Kingdom for each of the years listed in his table.

  Mr. Brooke
  Estimates of the overall size of the sports sponsorship market are as follows:

  £ million

  1985

  128

  1986

  146

  1987

  164

  1988

  182

  1989

  200

  1990

  223

  1991

  238

  1992

  239

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official

  93
  Report, column 425, what verification the Government require of the returns submitted by tobacco manufacturers under the terms of the voluntary agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The figures from the tobacco manufacturers are verified by their own auditors, and the aggregate figures are supplied by a firm of chartered accountants.

  St. Ethelburga's Church
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the Bishop of London to discuss the future of St. Ethelburga's church, Bishopsgate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am always happy to meet the bishop, but it is for the diocese to consider the various options for St. Ethelburga's and put forward proposals in due course. Any firm proposals would be likely to involve a need for a faculty or planning permission, or both.

  Pub Theatres
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the funding of pub theatres.

  Mr. Brooke
  Over the past 20 years, pub theatres have added a new and lively dimension to theatre life in London and elsewhere. They have an important role to play in the encouragement of new writing for the theatre. The funding of the theatres is a matter for the Arts Council and the regional arts boards. I understand that the London arts board provides support to the work that takes place in some pub venues, for example this year the King's Head in Islington will receive £38,222, and £15,352 is being allocated to the Gate in Notting Hill.

  British Jazz
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent on the promotion of British jazz in each of the last 10 years; and how much his Department expects to spend on the promotion of British jazz in the next two years.

  Mr. Brooke
  Central Government funding of the arts is channelled through the national Arts Councils and, in England, the 10 regional arts boards. It is for these bodies to determine the allocation of funds between the various art forms, including jazz. I understand that, overall, some £850,000 was spent on jazz in England in 1992–93. This is the most recent available figure. Comparable figures for earlier years are not held centrally. Future spending on jazz will reflect the outcome of a national review of jazz funding which has just been launched by the Arts Council of England.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Court Service
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement his decision to establish the Scottish Court Service as an executive agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that the Scottish Court Service will be established as an executive agency under 94
  the "next steps" initiative, with a vesting day of 3 April 1995. Arrangements are now being made to recruit a chief executive for the agency, and advertisements will appear in the national press in the course of this week.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that each local authority should be represented on the new police authorities covering its area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. Following reorganisation of local government in Scotland the new councils will be the police authority for their area. Where there will be a joint police board for a combined police area, each constituent authority will be represented on the joint board.

  Police
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish Office guidelines there are about what percentage of a police force may be employed in specialist branches such as CID and CIB.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no guidelines. The deployment of staff within forces is an operational matter for chief constables.

  Bills (Prompt Payment)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the prompt payment of bills by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's policy regarding the prompt payment of bills is that the timing of payments should be in accordance with contract terms and conditions. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding or accepted practice governing the timing of payment, the policy is to pay within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  My Department carries out annual checks of payment performance and the results for the last three financial years, set out as follows, show a steady improvement in the percentage of payments made early or on time.

  Year

  Percentage of payments paid early or on-time

  1991–92

  82

  1992–93

  85

  1993–94

  89

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information to which the public may wish to have access and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has very recently begun to evaluate the use of the Internet for the exchange of
  95
  scientific and research information. News releases are sent electronically to the Central Office of Information for inclusion in on-line databases which are accessible to users of the Internet. There are no plans at present for further use of the Internet.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 481–82, if he will list those outside Monklands district council to whom the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written seeking evidence about alleged corruption of Monklands district council.

  Mr. Stewart
  None of the Scottish Office Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State—in their capacity as Scottish Office Ministers—has written to anyone seeking evidence concerning the alleged corruption at Monklands district council.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people aged(a) between 15 and 17 years, (b) between 18 and 21 years and (c) 22 years and over were received into Scottish Prison Service establishments in each of the past four years;

  (2) if he will list the number of people received into Scottish Prison Service establishments for each of the past four years by type of prisoner and length of sentence;

  (3) how many untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners were received into Scottish Prison Service establishments over each of the past four years; and if he will break down the figure by age, sex, type of custody and outcome of court proceedings;

  (4) how many people were received into Scottish prison establishments in default of a fine over each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 10 May 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Questions about the number and type of prisoners received into Scottish penal establishments. This reply deals with Questions 110, 113, 116 and 121. The available information is given in the tables below.
  PQ110: The number of persons aged 15–17 years, 18–21 years and 22 years and over who were received into Scottish penal establishments in each of the past four years.

  Table 1: Remand receptions (Note 1)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Young offender

  7,066

  4,750

  4,641

  4,487

  Adult

  8,102

  8,377

  8,905

  8,925

  Table 2: Sentenced receptions (Note 2)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Age

  15–17

  961

  856

  975

  957

  18–21

  4,850

  4,559

  5,325

  5,373

  22 and over

  11,320

  12,809

  13,665

  15,827

  96
  PQ 113: The number of people received into Scottish penal establishments in each of the past four years by type of prisoner and length of sentence.

  Table 3: Adult receptions by sentence length (Note 2)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Less than 6 months

  10,353

  11,777

  12,338

  14,149

  More than 6 months but less than 18 months

  1,595

  1,686

  1,937

  2,192

  More than 18 months but less than 4 years

  490

  476

  491

  639

  4 years and over (including life)

  318

  354

  420

  461

  Table 4: Young offender receptions by sentence length (Note 2)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Less than 6 months

  3,511

  3,080

  3,725

  3,549

  More than 6 months but less than 18 months

  656

  652

  791

  821

  More than 18 months but less than 4 years

  147

  144

  179

  261

  4 years and over (including life)

  61

  55

  84

  85

  PQ 116: The number of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners received into Scottish penal establishments over each of the past four years' categorised by age, sex, type of custody and outcome of court proceedings.

  Table 5: Adult remand receptions to Scottish penal establishments by sex (Notes 2 and 3)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Untried:

  Male

  7,171

  7,471

  7,973

  7,831

  Female

  560

  553

  543

  632

  Convicted awaiting sentence

  Male

  355

  339

  319

  385

  Female

  16

  14

  70

  77

  Table 6: Young offender remand receptions to Scottish penal establishments by sex (Notes 1 and 3)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Untried:

  Male

  4,857

  3,433

  3,414

  3,305

  Female

  237

  184

  187

  185

  Convicted awaiting sentence

  Male

  1,940

  1,117

  1,016

  957

  Female

  32

  16

  24

  40

  PQ 123: The number of people received into Scottish penal establishments in default of a fine over each of the past 10 years.

  Table 7: Fine defaulter receptions to Scottish penal establishments (Note 2)

  Number

  1984

  8,883

  1985

  11,564

  1986

  10,626

  1987

  10,983

  1988

  9,714

  1989

  9,154

  1990

  6,835

  1991

  7,909

  97

  Number

  1992

  8,339

  1993

  9,657

  Notes:

  1. Only limited information is collected centrally in relation to the detail of remand receptions. The system does not provide an individual's age or details on the outcome of court proceedings of those previously remanded. Young offenders are those aged under 21 on reception.

  2. Sentenced receptions do not equate to "persons received". For example, where a person has several custodial sentences imposed on him by one court in one day this is counted as one reception. However, where custodial sentences are imposed on a person by two or more courts in one day, two receptions are recorded. Also, if a person is reconvicted while serving a custodial sentence and a further custodial sentence is imposed, this is also regarded as a separate reception.

  3. The split between 'untried' and 'convicted awaiting sentence' should be treated with some caution because of variations in the information collected by some establishments.

  4. The 1993 figures are provisional and may be subject to revision.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 949–50, how many copies of the further and higher education charter have been requested; how many responses were made to the drugs and solvent misuse hotline and how many booklets were issued; what was the response to the national continence week telephone helpline; and how many follow-up inquiries have been received to the Offshore Europe exhibition and the Europartenariat Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]: The details are:

  Further and Higher Education Charter
  Fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and thirty copies of the Further and Higher Education Charter have been issued so far.

  Drugs and Solvent Misuse
  Following the campaign this year, 2,635 calls were made to Drugline Scotland, and 3,032 requests were made for booklets.

  National Continence Week
  As a result of the publicity for National Continence Week, during March 1994 472 calls were received from members of the public, carers and health professionals by the national helpline. This was 250 per cent. of the normal monthly average. An increase in the number of calls received has continued throughout April.

  Offshore Europe Exhibition
  It is not always possible to relate specific company contacts to particular elements of The Scottish Office Industry Department's marketing programme. But at Offshore Europe officials responded to 420 requests for assistance and in addition directed a number of enquirers to other business support organisations.

  Europartenariat Scotland
  The success of Europartenariat Scotland is still being evaluated and enquiries arising from the event continue. Over 5,600 meetings with the 350 Scottish host companies took place during the event and Scottish Trade International, together with Local Enterprise Companies, is working closely with the Scottish host companies to assess the number of deals and agreements arising from those meetings and the other contacts made during Europartenariat Scotland. The organisation of the event has been highly praised and those involved are often approached for advice in running similar events in the rest of the United Kingdom and throughout Europe.

  Medical Consultants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of medical consultants per head of population.
  98
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: There were 4.6 whole-time equivalent medical consultants per 10,000 population at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which information is available; this figure is provisional.

  NHS Computer Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland (1) what conclusions he has reached at this stage in his review of computer services in the NHS;

  (2) what is the scope of his review of computer services in the NHS;

  (3) when he expects to complete his review of computer services in the NHS;

  (4) which individuals and bodies he is consulting for his review of computer services in the NHS.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: A group representing health boards and NHS trusts has been established to take forward the review of computer services in the NHS in Scotland. It is expected that the group will make recommendations to the chief executive by the end of June 1994. The scope of the review encompasses computer operations and applications sofware support and development. The group will be consulting with NHS trusts and health boards.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which health boards have sought assistance from computer consultants in the past five years; for what length of time; at what cost in each case; and with what improvements in efficiency on savings as a result.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current value of investment in software for computer services in the NHS.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: In 1994–95 approximately £28 million was made available from central funds to assist health boards and NHS trusts in the purchase and development of computer hardware and software. In addition, health boards and trusts are able to make investments from their own resources but information is not held centrally on the value of such investments.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his future plans for the Scottish ambulance service; and what scope his policy includes for(a) market testing or (b) privatisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The Scottish ambulance service has prepared an application for NHS trust status which will be considered following the process of public consultation.

  From 1 April 1995, subject to existing contractual arrangements with the Scottish ambulance service, health boards and NHS trusts may invite other suppliers to tender for the provision of non-emergency patient transport services. There are no plans to seek provision of accident and emergency services from suppliers other than the Scottish ambulance service.

  Common Services Agency
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy to keep the Common Services Agency's building division within the public sector;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Common Services Agency's board on future plans for the Common Services Agency's building division;

  (3) if he will estimate the costs and savings that would result from privatisation of the Common Services Agency's building division;

  (4) what plans he has for the future of the work force in the Common Services Agency's building division;

  (5) what consultations he has had, or is planning to have, with those who are clients of the Common Services Agency's building division.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 25 March his agreement in principle that the opportunity should be taken to invite tenders for a management buy-out or from the private sector to take over the building division of the Common Services Agency. There has been no change in this position.

  The board of the Common Services Agency has given regular consideration to the building division and its future. The board is taking forward the proposals for privatisation of the division. It is not possible to quantify the benefits to the NHS until the tender process has been completed and bids evaluated. The Common Services Agency will invite tenders for the division as a going concern. Staffing is therefore a matter for the successful tenderer.

  The building division of the Common Services Agency has been fee earning and competing with private firms for NHS work for the past three years. It is not necessary to consult NHS clients who will continue to be able to obtain the appropriate service from the successful tenderer or from another commercial source.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: As recorded in the relevant National Audit Office reports my Department paid advisers fees of £19.6 million and £0.4 million respectively for services in connection with the sale of the Scottish Electricity companies and the Scottish Bus Group. The proceeds of the sales came to well over £3 billion.

  Number of pupils for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time1

  Number of pupils who were assessed but not issued with a statement2

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  213

  264

  318

  251

  251

  10

  25

  Dyfed

  121

  193

  225

  272

  397

  22

  7

  Gwent

  463

  338

  402

  480

  497

  1

  2

  Gwynedd

  99

  133

  130

  205

  178

  12

  31

  Mid Glamorgan

  643

  543

  490

  545

  583

  36

  60

  Powys

  30

  78

  120

  134

  55

  7

  7

  South Glamorgan

  174

  243

  184

  215

  274

  28

  29

  West Glamorgan

  304

  307

  358

  354

  415

  87

  55

WALES

  Palace Close, Flint
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 96, (1) what response his officials have received from the National House Building Council with regard to complaints about inspections of properties at Palace close, Flint;

  (2) if he will meet residents of Palace close, Flint, to discuss their concerns about the performance of the National House Building Council with regard to inspection of their properties;

  (3) if he will instigate an investigation into building control inspection with regard to properties at Palace close, Flint, Clwyd;

  (4) when a report was submitted to his Department from Clwyd fire service in relation to building regulation 1985 schedule 1 with regard to properties at Palace close, Flint.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to supervise or regulate an approved inspector in the discharge of its functions in relation to individual cases and he has not commissioned a report from the Clwyd fire service.

  NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. has a statutory duty under regulation 10 of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 1985 to ensure that all work inspected by them as approved inspectors conforms with the building regulations. NHBC has assured me that they have every intention of doing everything necessary to discharge that duty. The Building Act 1984 provides for reference to the courts where an approved inspector has acted improperly. In cases of dispute, home owners have recourse to conciliation and independent arbitration procedures under NHBC warranty arrangements, but this is entirely a matter for the NHBC.

  In all these circumstances a meeting would not be appropriate.

  Special Educational Need
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in each local education authority were assessed for statements of special educational need in each of the last five years; and what proportion of those children received statements.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Full information on assessments is not collected centrally. The number of pupils who received a statement of special education needs for the first time in each local education authority and the number assessed but not issued with a statement are shown in the table.
  101
  1 The numbers of pupils for whom statements were made for the first time may include a number of pupils receiving statements who had been assessed during the previous calendar year and exclude a number who while having been assessed, are awaiting receipt of their statement.

  2Prior to 1991 this information was not collected.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has in operation 123 portable telephones, 21 pagers and electronic bleepers and two car telephones. The running costs of the equipment in 1993–94 were £24,429. Portable communication systems have been made available for use by Ministers, senior officials and others who are regularly engaged in official business away from the office and need to maintain contact with the Department and/or other organisations. Eighty one of the portable telephones are held specifically for issue on a temporary basis to officials who might need them while on official business and while working or travelling in areas where standard telephones may not be readily available.

  Land Authority for Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the occasions when the Land Authority for Wales has used its compulsory purchase powers in the last five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the applications for compulsory purchase currently being pursued by the Land Authority for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The compulsory purchase orders made by the land authority since 1988 are given in the table:

  Land Authority for Wales (Land at Mostyn Street, Llandudno) Compulsory Purchase Order 1988.

  Land Authority for Wales (Queen Street/Working Street, Cardiff) Compulsory Purchase Order 1988.

  Land Authority for Wales (Greyfriars Redevelopment, Carmarthen) Compulsory Purchase Order 1988.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  Local Authority

  1992–93 (at 1994–95 prices) (a) £

  1994–95 (Current prices) (b) £

  Percentage Change

  Aberconwy

  1,701,197

  1,685,231

  -0.9

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,706,548

  2,749,532

  1.6

  Arfon

  3,159,987

  2,877,908

  -8.9

  Blaenau Gwent

  11,571,250

  11,111,674

  -4.0

  Brecknock

  767,778

  707,901

  -7.8

  Cardiff

  20,818,346

  21,600,204

  3.8

  Carmarthen

  2,698,949

  2,176,051

  -19.4

  Ceredigion

  2,035,634

  1,744,286

  -14.3

  Colwyn

  2,265,533

  2,218,740

  -2.1

  Cynon Valley

  5,312,351

  4,752,984

  -10.5

  Delyn

  3,887,413

  *

  *

  Dinefwr

  1,338,639

  897,071

  -33.0

  Dwyfor

  902,725

  928,694

  2.9

  Glyndwr

  888,939

  653,273

  -26.5

  Islwyn

  5,765,274

  5,588,479

  -3.1

  Llanelli

  7,564,489

  8,194,581

  8.3

  Lliw Valley

  4,626,932

  3,690,814

  -20.2

  Meirionnydd

  1,139,356

  980,299

  -14.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7,376,127

  7,789,436

  5.6

  Monmouth

  4,069,340

  3,609,593

  -11.3

  Montgomeryshire

  715,718

  *

  *

  Neath

  5,128,501

  5,431,585

  5.9

  102

  Land Authority for Wales (Castle Park Redevelopment, Caerphilly) Compulsory Purchase Order 1989.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land at Ynys-y-Plwm, Llantrisant) Compulsory Purchase Order 1991.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land at North Pentwyn) Compulsory Purchaster Order 1992.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land off Tyn-y-Bryn Road, Tonyrefail) Compulsory Purchase Order 1992.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land at Maes-y-Bryn/Tyn-y-Gwern, North Pentwyn) Compulsory Purchase Order 1993.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land adjacent to Broad Close, Pontypridd Road, Barry) Compulsory Purchases Order 1994.

  Land Authority for Wales (Lion Street and Bethel Square, Brecon) Compulsory Purchases Order 1993.

  Land Authority for Wales (Land to the South West of West Terrace, Penarth) Compulsory Purchase Order 1993.

  Land Authority for Wales (Cefn Hirgoed, Bridgend and Bridgend Northern Distributor Road) Compulsory Purchase Order
  1994.

  The last three are subject to confirmation.

  Lamb Losses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures are available for financial losses to farmers resulting from extreme weather conditions during the 1993–94 lambing season.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Farm income data are derived from the farm business survey which collects data on a March to February financial year basis. Provisional income figures for 1994–95 will not be available until the autumn.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of housing revenue account subsidy for 1992–93 and 1994–95 for each district council and for Wales as a whole, in constant prices, indicating the percentage change in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of housing revenue account subsidy claimed by local authorities in constant (1994–95) prices is given where available in the table:
  103

  Local Authority

  1992–93 (at 1994–95 prices) (a) £

  1994–95 (Current prices) (b) £

  Percentage Change

  Newport

  12,074,472

  10,413,293

  -13.8

  Ogwr

  8,260,628

  7,315,393

  -11.4

  Port Talbot

  5,100,295

  5,179,763

  1.6

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,959,354

  2,918,254

  -1.4

  Radnorshire

  596,482

  432,666

  -27.5

  Rhondda

  9,259,418

  8,350,844

  -9.8

  Rhuddlan

  1,422,069

  1,609,798

  13.2

  Rhymney Valley

  11,687,268

  11,482,000

  -1.8

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,763,496

  1,444,414

  -18.1

  Swansea

  17,205,861

  18,102,741

  5.2

  Taff Ely

  7,450,938

  6,757,252

  -9.3

  Torfaen

  14,085,751

  12,500,222

  -11.3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,027,592

  3,304,096

  -18.0

  Wrexham Maelor

  7,514,704

  7,472,127

  -0.6

  Ynys Mon

  4,630,014

  4,383,832

  -5.3

  WALES

  204,479,369

  *

  *

  (a) Audit Final Subsidy Claims for 1992–93.

  (b) First Advance Subsidy Claims for 1994–95 except for Delyn and Montgomeryshire which have not been received.

  Conservation
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many proposed Ramsar sites there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are six proposed R.amsar sites in Wales, the details of which are shown:

  Site Name

  County

  1. Carmarthen Bay

  Dyfed

  2. Cors Fochno and Dyfi (extension of existing boundary)

  Gwynedd, Powys, Dyfed

  3. Corsydd Mon/Llyn

  Gwynedd

  4. Midland Meres and Mosses1

  Clwyd, Cheshire, Shropshire, Stafford

  5. Migneint and Cwm Hesgyn

  Gwynedd

  6. Lower Severn Estuary1

  South Glamorgan, Gwent, Somerset, Avon, Gloucester

  1Cross border site

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions were dispensed, and how many were exempt from charges, for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of prescriptions dispensed

  Thousands

  Year

  Total

  1 Number exempt

  1988–89

  28,840

  23,443

  1989–90

  29,366

  24,510

  1990–91

  30,033

  25,219

  1991–92

  31,634

  26,786

  1992–93

  32,888

  28,042

  1 Includes pre-paid certificates.

  Llanelli
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the inspector's report of the public inquiry he held in Llanelli in November 1993 into aspects of the proposals to redevelop the town centre of Llanelli.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The inspector's report is expected to be submitted for consideration in June 1994.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 25 April,Official Report, column 52, when he expects to be able to give the figures for asthma cases in Mid-Glamorgan and West Glamorgan district health authorities for the years 1991–92, and 1992–93; and if he will publish them as soon as possible after they are available to him.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information for 1991–92 and 1992–93 given in the answer of 25 April to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was based on data supplied by hospitals for the patient episode database for Wales, and for those districts for which the information is sufficiently complete. Data for some hospitals in Mid Glamorgan and West Glamorgan for these years are not yet sufficiently complete. Summary information from the database will be published once more complete information is received from the hospitals concerned.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in NHS hospitals in Wales have had to wait longer than four hours for a bed if admitted to a ward following an assessment or treatment in a casualty department during the last five years; and if he will list the hospitals in which the incidents occured.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally, though a recent review of performance indicates that patients in Wales can generally expect to wait between 25 minutes and four hours for a bed following assessment or treatment in a casualty department.
  105
  I want the NHS in Wales to do better than this and in the summer I will announce a new patients charter standard covering performance in this area. Performance against this standard will be monitored quarterly.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cash allocation for health authorities in Wales in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total cash allocations to health authorities in Wales in these years were as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1,470,438

  1993–94

  1,400,863

  The figures for 1993–94 are not comparable to those for 1992–93 because of several changes, in particular capital resourses were made available to NHS trusts which in 1993–94 increased to 14 in number. Training costs of professions allied to medicine were allocated to the newly created education and purchasing unit of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, and resources were transferred from health authorities allocations to GP fundholders.

  Welsh Jazz
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on the promotion of jazz in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and how much his Department expects to spend on the promotion of jazz in Wales in the next two years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally. The funding of music and other art forms is a matter for the Arts Council of Wales, previously the Welsh Arts Council.

  European Regional Funding
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the allocation of European regional development fund funding to each district council in Wales during 1992–93; and what account was taken of this funding in the allocation of capital charges SSA for each district council in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £46.5 million of ERDF money was allocated to district councils in Wales under the structural funds programmes which spanned the years 1992–93. Details of allocations to individual authorities are given in the following table.

  European regional development fund grants received by councils in 1992 and 1993 were not taken into account in calculating standard spending assessments in 1993–94. They were taken into account in calculating SSAs for 1994–95.

  ERDF funding provided to Welsh district councils between 1992–93

  £

  Industrial South Wales OP 1992–93

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  338,725

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  384,750

  LLanelli Borough Council

  2,310,411

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  184,516

  106

  £

  Islwyn Borough Council

  1,703,400

  Monmouth Borough Council

  37,836

  Newport Borough Council

  1,284,195

  Torfaen Borough Council

  1,670,682

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  428,500

  Ogwr Borough Council

  27,500

  Rhondda Borough Council

  873,450

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  122,500

  Cardiff City Council

  82,134

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  336,300

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  69,151

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  40,000

  Swansea City Council

  3,292,910

  RECHAR OP

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  56,250

  Carmarthen District Council

  56,250

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  475,213

  Llanelli Borough Council

  757,820

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  2,770,682

  Islwyn Borough Council

  1,072,492

  Torfaen Borough Council

  1,435,660

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  1,642,086

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  160,984

  Ogwr Borough Council

  1,402,832

  Rhondda Borough Council

  1,531,216

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  350,290

  Brecknock Borough Council

  102,694

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  331,868

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  320,060

  Neath Borough Council

  1,650,797

  Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys OP 1992–93

  Carmarthen District Council

  445,800

  Ceredigion District Council

  407,063

  Preseli Pembs District Council

  531,250

  South Pembs District Council

  1,300,681

  Dwyfor District Council

  1,559,102

  Meirionnydd District Council

  151,290

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  1,103,500

  Radnorshire District Council

  162,500

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  111,838

  Arfon Borough Council

  2,416,214

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  5,274

  Brecknock Borough Council

  1,776,500

  Clwyd OP 1992–93

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  142,400

  Colwyn Borough Council

  171,200

  Delyn Borough Council

  1,474,534

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  6,051,070

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  1,444,025

  Total

  46,558,395

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision was made in the cash allocation for health authorities in Wales in 1993–94 for the change in regulations governing statutory sick pay announced in the Budget in November 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There has been no specific provision. Overall authorities in Wales have benefited from increases in their discretionary allocations—2.2 per cent. in 1993–94 and 2.8 per cent. in 1994–95. These cash increases, together with the efficiency savings that authorities have been required to achieve in their contacts with service providers, should have been more than sufficient to meet all pay and non-pay cost increases. Patient activity is expected to increase by more than 4 per cent. in the current financial year.

  Local Government
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his predecessor sent the draft White Paper, "Local Government in Wales—a Charter for the Future", to other members of the Cabinet seeking their agreement to its publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy formulation.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his estimate of total funding for grant-maintained schools for each county and for Wales as a whole for each financial year between 1993–94 and 1996–97; and if he will make a statement on the likely decrease in funding in consequence of new funding rules on the lines of those introduced by the Department for Education in England.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The details for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are given in the following table. Funding for the grant-maintained sector in 1995–96 and 1996–97 has yet to be decided.

  1 1993–94 Provisional outturn

  1 1994–95 Estimated outturn

  Clwyd

  8,569,012

  10,575,910

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  Gwent

  4,659,396

  5,898,099

  Gwynedd

  451,675

  729,767

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  Powys

  72,909

  167,415

  South Glamorgan

  4,200,692

  9,722,275

  West Glamorgan

  3,352,253

  2,911,750

  WALES

  21,305,937

  30,005,216

  1 This covers annual maintenance grant, special purpose grants, and capital grants.

  Decisions on funding in England do not apply to grant-maintained schools in Wales.

  Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county and for Wales as a whole for the last available year(a) the number of students aged

  LEA

  School

  Grant-maintained status

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  St. Aidan's High School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Hayton CE Grant-Maintained School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Scotby CE Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  The Queen Katherine School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Appleby Grammar School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Harraby School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Dallam School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Parkview School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Warwick Bridge (GM) Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Cartmel Priory CE School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Brampton Junior School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  St. Paul's CE Junior School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Broughton Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Eaglesfield Paddle CE Primary School

  Operating

  108
  19 years and over who are receiving further education and (b) the estimated proportion of those students aged 19 years and over in further education who are not receiving grants.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The latest information on awards received under section 2 of the Education Act 1962 is for 1991–92. The table gives the number of students aged 19 and over who were on further education courses at colleges in Wales, by their county of usual residence, the number of people aged 19 and over receiving awards from each local authority and the difference between these numbers expressed as a percentage of student numbers. The number of students receiving awards includes some studying outside Wales and therefore not included in the student totals.

  Welsh students aged 19 and over on Further Education courses in Wales, 1991–92

  County of usual residence

  Student numbers (a)

  Award numbers

  Students less awards as percentage of students

  Clwyd

  5,481

  1,498

  73

  Dyfed

  4,945

  1,246

  75

  Gwent

  8,460

  65

  99

  Gwynedd

  3,992

  346

  91

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,999

  1,303

  87

  Powys

  2,620

  345

  87

  South Glamorgan

  5,349

  218

  96

  West Glamorgan

  8,972

  429

  95

  Wales

  49,818

  5,450

  89

  (a) Covers students at further and higher education colleges and includes those of unstated age. Excludes students studying outside Wales.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools in the counties of Northumberland, Cumbria, Durham, Cleveland and the metropolitan boroughs of Newcastle, Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland who have obtained grant-maintained status or have applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows:
  109

  LEA

  School

  Grant-maintained status

  Cumbria

  Askam Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Dearham Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Flookburgh (CE GM) Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Heversham CE Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Gilsland CE Primary School (Grant Maintained)

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Ireleth St. Peter's CE GM Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Bowness-On-Solway Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Appleby Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Dalton St. Mary's CE Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Hallbankgate (Grant-Maintained) Primary School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  William Howard School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Caldew School

  Operating

  Cumbria

  Eden School

  Rejected

  Cumbria

  Fir Ends School

  Proposals published

  Cumbria

  Orton CE Primary School

  Proposals published

  North Tyneside

  Wellifield Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Operating

  North Tyneside

  Ralph Gardner High School

  Rejected

  North Tyneside

  Monkseaton Village First School

  Rejected

  Northumberland

  Astley High School

  Operating

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools there were in each local education authority area on 1 April; in each case, how many had held ballots on grant-maintained status; how many ballots had resulted in

  Primary

  Secondary

  LEA

  All Schools

  GM Schools

  Total Ballots

  "Yes" Votes

  "No" Votes

  All Schools

  GM Schools

  Total Ballots

  "Yes" Votes

  "No" Votes

  Avon

  369

  —

  5

  —

  5

  60

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Barking

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  89

  2

  6

  2

  4

  21

  10

  11

  10

  1

  Barnsley

  96

  —

  1

  1

  —

  15

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Bedfordshire

  218

  3

  3

  3

  —

  71

  10

  19

  11

  8

  Berkshire

  275

  7

  10

  7

  3

  59

  10

  16

  13

  3

  Bexley

  64

  3

  4

  3

  1

  17

  5

  6

  5

  1

  Birmingham

  336

  6

  11

  6

  5

  79

  17

  24

  17

  7

  Bolton

  105

  1

  1

  1

  —

  16

  3

  3

  3

  —

  Bradford

  167

  3

  9

  7

  2

  88

  6

  8

  6

  2

  Brent

  64

  3

  4

  4

  —

  13

  10

  14

  12

  2

  Bromley

  78

  3

  7

  6

  1

  17

  12

  14

  13

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  290

  6

  9

  7

  2

  45

  10

  11

  10

  1

  Bury

  71

  1

  2

  1

  1

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  91

  4

  5

  4

  1

  16

  7

  11

  8

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  267

  6

  9

  7

  2

  44

  16

  25

  17

  8

  Camden

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Cheshire

  454

  3

  9

  6

  3

  68

  3

  11

  4

  7

  Cleveland

  203

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Cornwall

  249

  —

  1

  1

  —

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corporation of London

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry

  109

  —

  1

  —

  1

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  98

  2

  5

  3

  2

  20

  7

  11

  9

  2

  Cumbria

  306

  17

  27

  21

  6

  42

  14

  15

  15

  —

  Derbyshire

  450

  7

  14

  8

  6

  61

  14

  25

  15

  10

  Devon

  442

  1

  10

  2

  8

  64

  6

  10

  6

  4

  Doncaster

  127

  —

  5

  4

  1

  34

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dorset

  200

  1

  2

  1

  1

  56

  10

  16

  14

  2

  Dudley

  83

  1

  1

  1

  —

  22

  6

  9

  7

  2

  Durham

  298

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Ealing

  92

  4

  4

  4

  —

  13

  5

  8

  6

  2

  East Sussex

  219

  —

  1

  —

  1

  34

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Enfield

  70

  1

  4

  1

  3

  17

  5

  6

  5

  1

  Essex

  581

  72

  79

  73

  6

  105

  69

  77

  72

  5

  Gateshead

  82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Gloucestershire

  262

  11

  18

  17

  1

  43

  27

  36

  30

  6

  Greenwich

  79

  1

  1

  1

  —

  15

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hackney

  70

  1

  1

  1

  —

  10

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hammersmith

  38

  —

  1

  1

  —

  10

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  580

  13

  21

  18

  3

  94

  18

  24

  19

  5

  Haringey

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Havering

  74

  —

  2

  —

  2

  19

  4

  7

  4

  3

  Hereford and Worcester

  288

  —

  2

  —

  2

  76

  5

  8

  5

  3

  110
  votes in favour of seeking grant-maintained status; how many ballots had resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status; and how many schools were operating as grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The information requested is in the table:
  111

  Primary

  Secondary

  LEA

  All Schools

  GM Schools

  Total Ballots

  "Yes" Votes

  "No" Votes

  All Schools

  GM Schools

  Total Ballots

  "Yes" Votes

  "No" Votes

  Hertfordshire

  432

  9

  15

  12

  3

  88

  23

  32

  27

  5

  Hillingdon

  72

  11

  11

  11

  —

  15

  12

  15

  14

  1

  Hounslow

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Humberside

  354

  2

  5

  3

  2

  60

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Isle of Wight

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27

  2

  2

  2

  —

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Kent

  570

  18

  27

  25

  2

  136

  62

  75

  71

  4

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  1

  1

  1

  —

  10

  4

  4

  4

  —

  Kirklees

  158

  —

  2

  —

  2

  34

  2

  5

  3

  2

  Knowsley

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Lambeth

  77

  5

  8

  8

  —

  10

  5

  5

  5

  —

  Lancashire

  605

  2

  5

  3

  2

  106

  8

  16

  9

  7

  Leeds

  249

  1

  3

  1

  2

  46

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Leicestershire

  334

  —

  2

  —

  2

  79

  5

  10

  5

  5

  Lewisham

  72

  1

  1

  1

  —

  13

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Lincolnshire

  293

  23

  31

  27

  4

  63

  24

  30

  29

  1

  Liverpool

  198

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  3

  7

  4

  3

  Manchester

  174

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Merton

  49

  —

  1

  —

  1

  11

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  82

  —

  1

  —

  1

  22

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Newham

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  397

  13

  21

  17

  4

  52

  12

  16

  12

  4

  North Tyneside

  61

  —

  2

  1

  1

  26

  1

  3

  2

  1

  North Yorkshire

  394

  —

  3

  1

  2

  59

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Northamptonshire

  270

  9

  14

  10

  4

  65

  12

  21

  14

  7

  Northumberland

  143

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  426

  —

  1

  —

  1

  82

  3

  9

  4

  5

  Oldham

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Oxfordshire

  241

  1

  1

  1

  —

  44

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Redbridge

  56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  76

  4

  8

  5

  3

  14

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Rotherham

  115

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Sandwell

  112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  1

  5

  2

  3

  Sefton

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Sheffield

  164

  6

  17

  15

  2

  32

  2

  8

  6

  2

  Shropshire

  214

  1

  5

  5

  —

  37

  5

  7

  7

  —

  Solihull

  70

  1

  1

  1

  —

  13

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Somerset

  229

  2

  5

  3

  2

  39

  1

  3

  2

  1

  South Tyneside

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  75

  5

  5

  5

  —

  14

  5

  5

  5

  —

  St. Helens

  72

  —

  1

  1

  —

  12

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  414

  2

  4

  3

  1

  85

  5

  11

  5

  6

  Stockport

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Suffolk

  255

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Sunderland

  105

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  372

  13

  23

  21

  2

  51

  13

  16

  15

  1

  Sutton

  43

  3

  4

  3

  1

  14

  8

  8

  8

  —

  Tameside

  82

  —

  1

  —

  1

  18

  3

  5

  3

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Trafford

  78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  4

  6

  4

  2

  Wakefield

  130

  —

  2

  2

  —

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  106

  2

  3

  2

  1

  21

  6

  11

  7

  4

  Waltham Forest

  61

  —

  1

  —

  1

  16

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Wandsworth

  72

  2

  5

  3

  2

  10

  6

  8

  7

  1

  Warwickshire

  244

  —

  5

  3

  2

  37

  8

  9

  8

  1

  West Sussex

  246

  —

  1

  1

  —

  41

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Westminster

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Wigan

  125

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  294

  12

  21

  18

  3

  44

  16

  24

  16

  8

  Wirral

  106

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Wolverhampton

  101

  —

  1

  —

  1

  20

  3

  6

  5

  1

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of schools are derived from the latest available Index of Educational Establishments which relates to Spring Term 1994.

  2. "All Schools" comprise maintained primary and secondary schools eligible for grant-maintained status.

  3. "Total Ballots" includes a small number at schools which have held more than one ballot.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage students to study science and technology.
  113
  Mr. Boswell
  The introduction of general national vocational qualifications in engineering and science will provide high-quality alternatives to GCE A-levels and additional routes for students wishing to acquire scientific skills. Changes in the fee structure for universities and colleges offer an incentive to offer relatively more places in science and technology. Fees for laboratory and workshop-based courses will continue to be significantly higher than those for classroom-based courses. We are also introducing an engineering bursary scheme which will provide an additional £500 a year to those entering accredited engineering degree courses in autumn 1994, 1995 and 1996 who have achieved grades AAB at A-level or its equivalent.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of current undergraduate university students attend universities within 20 miles of their home.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information is not collected centrally about the distance that students travel to their university or college.

  In the academic year 1992–93, 35 per cent.—195,500 —of English domiciled students on higher education undergraduate courses in English institutions were either attending a new university or further education college in the LEA or region in which they were domiciled, or were attending a former Universities Funding Council—funded institution and living in parental, marital or student-owned accommodation.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's press releases issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  The Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service, details of which can be provided by its distribution service.

  I have no further plans to use the Internet directly.

  Mr. David Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will list the private and independent schools that have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools or OFSTED in the past five years, giving the date of the inspection, where the inspection led to a published report.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply 15 March 1994, c. 626–27]: Those independent schools which received an HMI inspection between 1 September 1989 and 31 August 1992 which led to published reports are listed. This corrects the information given in the earlier reply.
  114

  School name

  Date of visit

  Nanhurst School

  30 October 1989

  Wells Cathedral School

  27 November 1989

  Hyland House School

  12 March 1990

  Summerhill School

  12 May 1990

  Hilsea College

  18 June 1990

  Small School at Red House

  2 October 1990

  Oaktree House School

  11 June 1990

  Small school, Winestead

  4 December 1990

  Covenant School

  8 October 1990

  Madina Tul Uloom Al Islamiya

  8 May 1990 and 19 July 1990

  Darul Uloom Islamic School

  26 November 1990

  Christ The King School

  4 February 1991

  Duke of York's Military School

  25 February 1991

  Hounslow College and Hounslow College Prep School

  21 May 1991

  Stonely Grange School

  14 October 1991

  Rodney School

  3 June 1991

ENVIRONMENT

  Compulsary Purchase Orders
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are using compulsory purchase orders to purchase private sector houses which are standing empty.

  Sir George Young
  Since 1 January 1993, 31 local authorities have submitted compulsory orders for the acquistion of empty houses. This does not include local authorities who have submitted clearance compulsory purchase orders.

  Housing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what precautions have been taken to ensure that under the Housing (Right to Manage) Regulations 1994 minority groups are not discriminated against in the event of a hostile majority taking over management of tenancies.

  Sir George Young
  Minority groups are protected under the Housing (Right to Manage) Regulations 1994 and associated guidance in a number of ways.

  Any tenant affected by the right to manage proposal notice may become a member of the tenant management organisation—TMO. The TMO must, in the conduct of its affairs, avoid discrimination against any person on grounds of racial origin, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

  The approved agent who carries out the initial feasibility study under the right to manage is charged with ensuring that the TMO option is not pursued for discriminatory purposes. If, in his opinion, the TMO is not operating in accordance with its constitution, or is pursuing tenant management in order to exclude certain sections of the community, or if its committee or board is not reasonably representative of the community it serves and has no plans to remedy this, the agent is expected to submit an early report which brings the feasibility study to an end.

  The approved person is required to submit, within two years of his appointment, a report of the full feasibility study to the Secretary of State. This report sets out, inter alia, the agent's assessment of the TMO's competence to carry out the management responsibilities it wishes to take on from the local authority. The TMO must be able to

  115
  satisfy the agent that its committee is representative of the community it serves. Any TMO aspiring to take on the allocation of tenancies must do so within the framework of the local authority's policies and procedures, including those on equal opportunities.

  Local authorities have responsibility for monitoring the performance of TMOs, including their performance on equal opportunities.

  Building Materials
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the value of imports of building materials into the United Kingdom for each of the past three years;

  (2) what percentage of building materials used in the United Kingdom is imported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The value, in current prices, of imports of building materials into the United Kingdom are:

  Imports £ billions

  1990

  4.70

  1991

  4.03

  1992

  4.04

  1993

  13.01

  1 First three quarters only.

  The information used by the Department to derive imports is not yet available for the fourth quarter of 1993.

  Available data indicate that the value of imports are about a fifth of the total used by the construction industry. This excludes the DIY market and the black economy whose usage of building materials cannot be readily be quantified. The value of imports compares with exports of £2.31 billion during 1992 and £1.93 billion during the first three quarters of 1993.

  I am, however, concerned at the level of United Kingdom imports of high value construction products. The Department is currently working closely with the industry-led construction procurement group on a series of measures to improve competitiveness in building products.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision exists for objectors to a planning application to appeal against planning approval for the application.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Rent Assessment Panels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how a person applies, and to whom, to be considered as a member of a rent assessment panel.

  Sir George Young
  Candidates for membership may propose themselves to the Department, or to the president or vice-president of the panel. They may also be proposed by friends or colleagues, or identified by my Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the public appointments unit, or by panel presidents.
  116
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reviews have taken place as to the workings of rent assessment panels since the scheme was introduced.

  Sir George Young
  Since the formation of the rent assessment panels in 1965, they have been subject to the normal cycles of departmental administrative reviews applied to non-departmental public bodies. The most recent of those have been an internal audit report in 1990 and a financial management and policy review in 1991. Their adjudicative role was also considered within the context of the wider based civil justice review of 1988, undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the term of office that a member serves on a rent assessment panel.

  Sir George Young
  A new member is appointed for a period of up to three years, so as to terminate on the general review date for a similar class of member in that panel. Thereafter, the appointment is reviewed at three-yearly intervals. Members retire automatically in their 70th year.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what salary and allowances are paid to a member of a rent assessment panel.

  Sir George Young
  The daily fees payable to members of rent assessment panels when sitting on committees and tribunals are as follows:

  £

  Chairmen

  221

  Professional Members

  177

  Lay Members

  113

  Presidents and Vice-Presidents of panels are salaried and part-time and are paid an appropriate proportion of the following full-time annual rates according to their individual time commitment:

  £

  London President

  55,910

  London Vice-Presidents

  53,000

  Provincial Presidents

  53,730

  Provincial Vice-Presidents

  50,810

  Travel and subsistence allowances are paid, when appropriate, at civil service rates.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he now has to combat pollution of the night sky by ground light; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware of the concerns, particularly of astronomers, about the adverse effects of "skyglow", which is caused when artificial light from the ground is scattered by dust particles and water droplets in the atmosphere.

  Light can be reflected upwards from a variety of sources, including street lighting and flood and security lighting of industrial, commercial and domestic premises.
  117
  Given the legitimate desire for roads and public areas to be well lit for security and amenity reasons, there is a limit to how much of this reflected light can be eliminated. However, significant improvements can be achieved by lowering the intensity of, and redesigning, some existing lighting schemes and encouraging the sensitive design of new ones. Useful guidance on this subject has been issued by Government Departments and a number of professional organisations.

  We are keeping under review whether other measures might usefully be taken to minimise excessive lighting, taking account of the recent findings of an informal survey of local authorities' handling of complaints about light pollution, but it seems that many of those problems are most appropriately tackled through education and guidance, rather than regulation.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the third report on the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" will be published.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 20 April 1994,Official Report, column 867, the report is being published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the mechanisms for(a) registering and (b) inspecting the care provided to residents of sheltered housing schemes.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no requirement for the registration and inspection of the care provided to residents of sheltered housing schemes, unless they provide residential accommodation, board and personal care for residents. Any such establishments providing all those services would count as a residential care home and be subject to registration and inspection by the social services authority in the same way as other such homes.

EMPLOYMENT

  Banking Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of redundancies that have been announced by the banking industry in each of the last three years; what is the total work force of the industry for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of redundancies announced by the banking industry alone is not available. However, the labour force survey provides estimates of redundancies that took place in the three months prior to interview for the broad industry group—SIC 8—of banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing for Great Britain. These are as follows:118

  Redundancies (not seasonally adjusted): Labour force survey Great Britain

  Spring

  Number

  1991

  45,000

  1992

  34,000

  1993

  29,000

  Figures from the labour force survey of the number of employees employed in banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing—SIC 8—are shown in the table along with figures for the more specific class of banking and finance—SIC 81.

  Numbers of Employees (Not Seasonally Adjusted): Labour Force Survey, Great Britain

  (SIC 8)

  (SIC 81)

  Spring 1991

  2,455,000

  643,000

  Spring 1992

  2,356,000

  607,000

  Spring 1993

  2,443,000

  625,000

  An alternative source of employment estimates is available from the quarterly survey of employers for March of each year. These figures differ from those derived from the LFS in that they are a count of jobs rather than people and also rely on industry classification from the employer rather than from the employee as in the LFS. Estimates from this employer survey source for banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing—SIC—and the banking and finance industry class—SIC 81—are as follows:

  Employees in Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted): Employer Survey, Great Britain

  (SIC 8)

  (SIC 81)

  March 1991

  2,660,100

  616,500

  March 1992

  2,595,800

  588,700

  March 1993

  2,631,600

  568,000

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 302, referring to inter-TEC comparison tables, if he will extend the tables to give details for each training and enterprise council in Greater London of the figures for youth training cost per output point, employment training cost per output point, national vocational qualifications per 100 youth training leavers, positive outcomes per 100 employment training leavers, NVQs per 100 employment training leavers, youth training guarantee and investors in people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am unable to give the information for which the hon. Member is asking. The first publication of the comparative data was intended to give a broad indication of the range of relative training and enterprise council performance, not to make fine distinctions between TECs. The Department is continuing to refine the comparisons.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) male full-time workers, (b) male part-time workers, (c) female full-time workers, (d)

  119
  female part-time workers, (e) self-employed males and (f) self-employed females had a second job as (i) an employee and (ii) self-employed in each year since 1984.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is available from the labour force survey and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed people in May 1979; and what the figure is at the present time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 19941: On the consistent, seasonally adjusted basis, there were 1,086,800 claimant unemployed persons in May 1979 and 2,722,600 in March 1994.

TRANSPORT

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which European directive the environmental assessment for the M11 link road was based; what are the current requirements relating to environmental assessment of such schemes; and what are the differences between the assessment carried out for the Mll link road and current requirements.

  Mr. Norris
  This question relates to the operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 5 May 1994:

  M11 Link Road
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the M11.
  The environmental assessment of the Mll link road was not based on any EC Directive. The European Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment came into force in 1988 after development consent for the Mll link project was granted.
  The EC Directive as implemented by section 105A of the Highways Act currently applies to Trunk Road schemes. The Directive requires that the assessment must be made in accordance with current knowledge and methods of assessment.
  The assessment of the M11 link road was in accordance with practices current at the time. The environmental effects of the scheme were thoroughly assessed before the decision was taken in 1985 to authorise its construction.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has 288 portable telephones, 1,946 pagers and electronic bleepers and 23 car telephones. Figures are not available for the annual operating costs. The equipment is issued to staff on the basis of operational need, especially where they have to 120
  work away from an office. The main users of the equipment are staff in the Coastguard Agency, Highways Agency, vehicle inspectorate and air accident investigation branch.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway accidents there were in April; where and on which date each of these accidents occurred; and how many accidents there were in April 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not readily available. The Health and Safety Executive collates railway accident statistics annually. The figures for 1993–94 will be published by the end of 1994 in HM railway inspectorate's annual report on railway safety in Great Britain. Equivalent information for 1994–95 will be published by the end of 1995.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of heavy goods vehicles registered in 1979; and what is the total at the latest available date.

  Mr. Key
  The numbers of goods vehicles, both new registrations and licensed stock at year end, in 1979 and 1993 is given below. However, as a result of changes in vehicle taxation regulations which occurred between the two years, the 1979 and 1993 data are not strictly comparable. The earliest year for which figures comparable to 1993 are available is 1980 and estimates for this year have been included in the table.

  Goods Vehicles

  thousands

  New registrations

  Stock at year end

  Old definition

  Current definition

  Old definition

  Current definition

  1979

  91

  —

  561

  —

  19801

  —

  55

  —

  507

  19932

  —

  33

  —

  432

  1 Estimated

  2 Provisional

  Third River Crossing, Blackwall
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed third river crossing at Blackwall; what proposals he has received from construction companies for the third river crossing at Blackwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letterfrom Lawrie Haynes to Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 10 May 1994:

  PROPOSED THIRD RIVER CROSSING AT BLACKWALL
  Steven Norris has asked me to write to you in response to your question in the House about progress on the proposals for a third crossing at Blackwall.
  As you know, considerable concern was expressed about the environmental implications of the bridge option when we held a public consultation on the proposals for this scheme. A good deal of thought has to be given to the response to these before the way forward with this scheme can be decided.

  121
  I have received no formal proposals from construction companies, although there have been informal discussions. These include some which raise the possibility of private finance. If any of these ideas are developed further and brought to my attention, I will include them in the report on the public consultation which I will be submitting to the Secretary of State.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Road Building Greater London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the future road building programmes for the Greater London area; what is the estimated cost of such work; and what are the expected dates of commencement and completion of such works.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 10 May 1994:

  FUTURE ROAD PROGRAMME GREATER LONDON
  Steven Norris has asked me to write to you in response to your question in the House about the future road building programme for the Greater London area.
  You may recall the press notice sent to you at the end of March announcing the results of the review of the road programme. I enclose a further copy, from which you will see that the schemes are set out in the same grouping as in the Roads Report published at the end of March. I also enclose a copy of the tables from the report in which the London schemes are highlighted.
  As you will see from the copy tables, dates for start and completion of works are not available for all the schemes. For those schemes in the early stage of planning, the start dates will depend on a number of factors, such as the progress with the statutory procedures to authorise their construction and the availability of funds when we are ready to invite tenders for the work. The stage reached with each scheme is given in the tables.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Car Dealers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action can be taken, and by whom, against car dealers who display motor vehicles for sale on the public highway which do not display a current road fund licence disc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is responsible for vehicle excise duty enforcement for all unlicensed vehicles kept or used on public roads in Great Britain. Where offences are detected and the persons responsible traced, action is taken either through out-of-court settlement or, in the more serious cases, by prosecution. This action may apply to any vehicle keeper who commits such an offence, and this includes car dealers.

  London Transport Employees (Assaults)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees of London Transport have been subject to assaults whilst on duty in each of the last five years, and in 1994 to the latest available date; how many of these were working on(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground at the time of the assault; and in how many cases the assaults were recorded as being racially motivated.
  122
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: The numbers of assaults on London Transport employees over this period have been as follows:

  Year

  London Buses

  London Underground

  1989

  896

  135

  1990

  966

  120

  1991

  1,018

  142

  1992

  1,035

  141

  1993

  858

  112

  11994

  202

  34

  1To 31 March.

  The figures for London Buses cover all assaults on staff; those for London Underground include only criminal assaults—those involving injury and likely to lead to consideration of a prosecution.

  London Transport does not keep records of the number of assaults that may have been racially motivated.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Gross voted expenditure on the employment of consultants on privatisation programmes sponsored by the Department since 1980, and other costs associated with these privatisations, has been £107 million. Departmental expenditure associated with privatisations is covered by the sale proceeds.

  Some transport undertakings will have incurred expenditure themselves in employing consultants in the process of privatising parts of their operations, but these costs are a matter for the bodies concerned.

  Transport, London
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of public spending on transport in London is spent on roads; and what proportion on public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: In 1992–93, public investment in London Transport, Network SouthEast and docklands light railway amounted to around £1,400 million, while capital expenditure by central Government and local authorities on roads in London, excluding the M25, was about £400 million. Expenditure on NSE benefited a broader area than London alone.

  Hayes Bypass
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department is making of the traffic difficulties of Northolt following the opening of the Hayes bypass; what solutions he is proposing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 May 1994]: It would be for the London borough of Ealing, as traffic and highway authority for all local roads in the Northolt area, including the northern end of the Hayes bypass, to carry out any studies of local conditions. The Department of Transport is responsible for the A40 trunk road. To reduce congestion at the westbound exit slip road from the A40 at Target

  123
  roundabout, the Department's Highways Agency will this summer be introducing traffic signals at the entry to the roundabout.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue (Wales)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to consult the Welsh Language Board and the Secretary of State for Wales regarding any proposal by the Inland Revenue for the closure or transfer of staff from any office providing a service in the Welsh language.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue's programme of change for the whole of the United Kingdom is improving the service of taxpayers by organising work more effectively. Some offices will close. However, in Wales, this will not involve any deterioration in the Welsh language service provided.

  All tax offices in Wales provide a full Welsh language service and will continue to do so. The service is supported by a Welsh language unit. This was set up in 1990 in accordance with guidelines published by the Welsh Language Board. It is available to all those who wish to correspond or converse in Welsh and can also be used by those whose tax affairs are dealt with outside Wales.

  Consultation with the Welsh Language Board and the Secretary of State for Wales on changes to local offices is not needed.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish for each year since 1990 for each county in Wales and for Wales as a whole(a) the total number of Inland Revenue employees and (b) the number of Inland Revenue employees who are Welsh speaking;

  (2) if he will publish for each year since 1990 for each county in Wales, and for Wales as a whole the number of Inland Revenue officers and the number of Inland Revenue officers able to provide a service in the Welsh language.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The Inland Revenue monitors the number of Welsh-speaking employees each year but does not maintain an historic record. The number of Inland Revenue employees serving in Wales for each year between 1990 to 1993 was as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  469

  519

  628

  629

  Dyfed

  257

  279

  297

  291

  Gwent

  283

  297

  311

  306

  Gwynedd

  169

  189

  198

  194

  Mid Glamorgan

  234

  242

  251

  255

  South Glamorgan

  2,504

  2,631

  2,771

  2,760

  Powys

  83

  91

  93

  92

  West Glamorgan

  237

  263

  311

  308

  TOTAL

  4,236

  4,511

  4,860

  4,835

  (a) The current number of Inland Revenue employees serving in each county of Wales is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  631

  Dyfed

  301

  Gwent

  309

  124

  Number

  Gwynedd

  199

  Mid Glamorgan

  254

  South Glamorgan

  2,756

  Powys

  92

  West Glamorgan

  310

  The total number of Inland Revenue employees serving in Wales as a whole is 4,852.

  (b) The current number of Inland Revenue employees serving in each county of Wales who are recorded as Welsh speakers is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  30

  Dyfed

  62

  Gwent

  3

  Gwynedd

  71

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  South Glamorgan

  55

  Powys

  3

  West Glamorgan

  22

  The total number of Inland Revenue employees who are Welsh speaking is 255.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of VAT or tax is levied on(a) motor vehicle fuel, (b) fuel for railway locomotives and (c) aviation fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Value added tax is levied as follows:(a) All supplies of road fuel are liable to VAT on the standard rate of 17–5 per cent. VAT is due on the total value including the excise duty.
  (b&c) Supplies of fuel and power for railway locomotives and of aviation fuel are also normally liable to VAT at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. If, unusually, the supply is of a very small quantity of fuel then it may fall within the "qualifying use" criteria set out in Schedule 5, Group 7, Note (2) of the VAT Act 1983 and, as such, by virtue of Section 42 of the Finance Act 1993, is currently liable to VAT at 8 per cent.
  From 1 April 1995 these supplies will also be liable to VAT at 17–5 per cent.
  (c) Supplies of fuel delivered as stores direct to non-private foreign going aircraft may be zero-rated subject to meeting the Stipulated conditions.

  Excise duty is levied at the following rates:

  (a) Motor vehicle fuel

  Leaded petrol—33.14 pence per litre

  Unleaded petrol—28.32 pence per litre

  Diesel road fuel—27.70 pence per litre

  Gas used as road fuel—16.57 pence per liquid litre

  (b) Railway locomotive fuel

  Rebated gas oil (diesel)—1.64 pence per litre

  Electricity—No excise duty liability

  Coal—No excise duty liability

  (c) Aviation fuel

  Aviation gasoline—16.57 pence per litre

  Aviation turbine fuel (kerosene)—Nil

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received suggesting that the charging of VAT on company cars should be rescinded on legal grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  None, although I understand that a number of businesses have challenged the current United Kingdom VAT regime for cars on legal grounds. Taxation of the private use of business cars is mandatory under
  125
  Community law. Since the inception of the tax in April 1973, the United Kingdom has achieved this through restricting tax recovery on the purchase of cars. The current legal basis for this simplified procedure is article 17(6) of the sixth directive (77/388/EEC).

  Fiscal Regime, Dublin
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the fiscal regime in Dublin compared with that in London as an attraction to financial institutions specialising in personal savings products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No blanket assessment of the attractions of different centres is possible. The tax position of personal savings products depends on the tax rules in the state of residence of the saver as well as those in the state of origin of the product, if different, on the characteristics of the product and of any assets underlying it and on the terms of any relevant double taxation agreements. The tax rules applicable to profits of the product providers will also have some influence on their choice of location. The Government seek to put in place tax rules which are consistent with widespread purchase of United Kingdom personal savings products, most recently by changes in the Finance Act 1994 to the tax rules for authorised unit trusts.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fishermen (Compensatory Payments)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to grant compensatory payments to fishermen for loss of earnings as a result of the bad weather; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. The level of activity of certain sections of the Northern Ireland fleet may have been curtailed due to weather at certain times but when viewed over a longer period, that has not been to such a large extent as to justify aid.

  Income Support, South Down
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recipients in each age group became eligible for top-up payments to bring them up to the income support level after 11 April at each of the social security offices in South Down.

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

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information to which the public may wish to have access and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of the Environment (NI) has adopted a registered Internet addressing scheme and is in the process of building a strategic data communications network around this, initially for inter-departmental communication only. It has 126
  no plans at present to make available on the Internet press releases or other departmental information which the public may wish to access, nor has it any plans to use Internet as a means of increasing the openness of the Department.

  Internet is one of several options currently under consideration by some departments as a possible means of providing their information systems needs for the future.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Portable. Telephones—258;

  (b) Pagers and electronic bleepers—310;

  (c) Car telephones—75.

  The cost of operating this equipment for the 1993–94 financial year is estimated at £146,000. The equipment is used by senior management, private office staff, security personnel, press officers, car pool/official drivers and other staff whose duties require them to be frequently absent from their base and who are required to maintain contact.

  Road Works
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to improve street lighting along the roadway from Killinchy village to Balloo crossroads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  During this summer, street lighting will be provided along a 100 m stretch of Beechvale road from Killinchy village to the new residential home.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is programmed to commence work at the new Forster Green road junction in Castlereagh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Work on the Forster Green junction improvement scheme is programmed to commence in the 1995–96 financial year subject to the continuing availability of finance and the completion of the associated statutory procedures.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is programmed to commence work at the Comber bypass.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Work on the Comber bypass: stage 2 is programmed to commence in the 1997–98 financial year subject to the continuing availability of finance and the completion of the statutory procedures.

  Lambs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of lambs lost by farmers in Northern Ireland as a result of the adverse weather conditions this year during the lambing period.
  127
  Mr. Ancram
  There is no requirement on farmers to report losses of lambs and the Department of Agriculture accordingly has no information on which to base an estimate.

DEFENCE

  D-day
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the planned expenditure by his Department on the D-day celebrations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although much work remains to be done, the additional cost to my Department is expected to be between £3 million and £4 million.

  Recruitment (Young People)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department on, and what regulations are in force in respect of, the recruitment into the armed forces of young people under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum age limit for recruitment of non-commissioned personnel into the armed forces is 16; for officers, the age limits are higher and vary for each of the services. No recruits under the age of 18 may enter the services without the written permission of their parents or guardian.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to the effectiveness of the planning cell at the Western European Union headquarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Western European Union planning cell makes a valuable contribution to the work of the WEU. The United Kingdom will continue to support its activities.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the enlargement of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Hanley
  At the Western European Union Ministerial Council on 9 May the central and eastern European countries of the WEU forum of consultation were offered the status of associate partners in WEU. This represents a significant broadening and deepening of relations between WEU and these countries, although stopping short of full membership for them.

  Trident
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost to the defence budget of maintaining four Trident submarines in operation and in readiness to launch a nuclear strike against another country.

  Mr. Aitken
  The average annual running cost of Trident over its life is expected to be about £200 million, at 1991–94 prices.

  Defence Equipment (Value for Money)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's programme for ensuring value for money in the successful tenders for defence equipment.
  128
  Mr. Aitken
  Contract award decisions are made after satisfying ourselves that our requirements are adequately met having regard to price, delivery, military effectiveness and other relevant factors.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for British forces in Bosnia of the Government's expenditure plans 1994–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are none. The additional costs arising from the British military deployment in the former Yugoslavia are refunded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under approved procedures.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current military situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).

  Nuclear Weapons (Former Soviet Union)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Ministers of other NATO countries regarding assistance towards the dismantling of nuclear weapons in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been no such discussions recently. This programme of nuclear assistance is co-ordinated by the NATO ad hoc group on nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union in which the United Kingdom participates.

  On 10 November 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russian Foreign Minister, which sets out the terms for the supply of 250 nuclear weapons super-containers and 20 nuclear weapons transport vehicles, which are being gifted to Russia to help with the safe and secure transport of surplus nuclear warheads. The estimated cost of this programme is £35 million at current prices. I am pleased to inform the House that the first batch of 48 super-containers was handed over to Russia on 8 May. Deliveries will continue through the year and are expected to be completed by the end of 1994. This programme of assistance is a significant contribution to nuclear arms control.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards contracting out the Army's engineering and maintenance work.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's policy is to expose in-house activities to competition from the private sector, wherever possible. Base repair and overhaul of Army equipment is carried out by the Army Base Repair Organisation, a defence agency. ABRO is currently implementing a programme of market testing its services. The pilot market test, of 18 base workshop, was won by the in-house team following a keenly contested competition.

  In fact, quite apart from the market-testing initiative, the Army Base Repair Organisation already contracts with

  129
  industry to undertake about a third of its work load, by volume. This dual sourcing between the agency's own workshops and private industry provides an element of competition, and safeguards the ability to surge above the organisation's normal repair capacity during times of crisis.

  Defence Costs Study
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of defence expenditure.

  Mr. Aitken
  Work on the defence costs study is continuing. Thirty-one of the 33 individual study teams set up to examine particular areas of defence support have submitted their final reports. Their proposals are now under consideration. This is a complex and necessarily lengthy process and it will be some time before final decisions are taken. We hope to make public the broad outcome of the study before the summer recess. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my closing remarks in the Army debate on 4 May Official Report, 4 May, columns 815–16, in which I outlined a number of messages emerging from the defence costs study.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the impact of the current defence review on defence-related employment in Hampshire.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such estimate is possible at this stage as decisions on the defence costs study have yet to be taken.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 399, if he will list the membership of the defence costs study team which is specifically concerned with repair, spares, storage and distribution; if he will give full details of the instructions given to the team; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The defence costs study into repair, spares, storage and distribution was led by Mr. D. Jones. The study team members were:

  Captain A. Burbridge RN,

  Air Commodore D. Anderson,

  Mr. J. Morrison,

  Mr. S. Goodwin,

  Mr. J. Oughton-Efficiency Unit,

  Miss A. Perkins—HM Treasury,

  Mr. R. Benton—External member.

  The Study's remit was to identify means of achieving maximum possible reductions in the costs—including those that might be associated with further adjustments to readiness—associated with repair, spares, storage and distribution in all the services. The study was to range as broadly as necessary but in particular was to propose the appropriate policy and organisation/administration for:

  Third and fourth line repair;

  Spares procurement and stockholding;

  Non-explosive storage;

  Explosive storage and processing;

  Freight Distribution.

  Manpower
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present manpower strength of the armed services.
  130
  Mr. Hanley
  The total strength of the armed forces as at 1 March 1994 was some 256,000. Further details are contained in the monthly "Tri-Service Personnel Statistics Return on Strengths, Intake and Outflow of the UK Regular Forces", a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what total level of staff reductions he is expecting in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98; and what impact this will have on this budget.

  Mr. Hanley
  The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" indicates the forecast manpower levels for service personnel at 1 April 1995 and for civilian personnel at April 1996. Manpower levels for later years will be affected by a range of factors, including of course, the outcome of the defence costs study.

  Nuclear Capability
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase Britain's nuclear capability.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government remain committed to retaining the minimum nuclear capability necessary for credible and effective deterrence. Our plans have most recently been set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Exports
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution to exports of United Kingdom defence industries.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to report that 1993 was another record year, with British defence equipment manufacturers winning export orders worth around £6,000 million. These figures build on our success in 1992, and maintain the United Kingdom's position as the world's second-largest supplier of defence equipment.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions RAF personnel at RAF Valley have been called out for mountain rescue and air-sea rescue purposes during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994 RAF search and rescue personnel and equipment at RAF Valley were involved in 234 call-outs. The search and rescue helicopters and mountain rescue team responded to 161 call-outs on land, 45 along the coastline and 28 at sea.

  MOD Housing
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will transfer surplus MOD housing to ensure it can be used for low-cost rented accommodation.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy).

  Northern Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the loss of the United Nations helicopters in Northern Iraq.
  131
  Mr. Hanley
  The two United States helicopters shot down in northern Iraq on 14 April by United States FI5s are the subject of a United States investigation, in which the United Kingdom and other coalition partners are fully represented. The results of the investigation will be reported to Parliament as soon as possible and it would be inappropriate for my Department to attempt to make an assessment at this stage.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the budget of his Department in constant prices(a) in the current year, (b) five years previously and (c) 10 years previously; and if he will identify the main area in which savings have been made.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95

  1990–91

  1985–86

  22,889

  26,456

  28,951

  Notes:

  (1) All figures are in £ million and are at 1994–95 constant prices.

  (2) Figures are adjusted for technical changes in the treatment of Armed Forces and civilian pensions described in the 1992 Autumn Statement (Cm 2096) and other classification changes.

  (3) Figures include expenditure arising from the Falklands and Gulf conflicts and redundancy costs flowing from 'Options for Change', but exclude Gulf burdensharing contributions from other Govemments.

  (4) Figures for 1990–91 and 1985–86 include expenditure relating to the security and intelligence services.

  The defence programme has changed significantly over the period in question largely due to the changing strategic environment as well as changes to commitments and capabilities. More specific details can be found in successive "Statements on the Defence Estimates", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the countries with which the United Kingdom has had discussions with a view to guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Belize;

  (2) what discussions have taken place to guarantee the defence of Belize in the event of external aggression since the decision to reduce the British military presence in Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  The sovereignty and independence of Belize are recognised by all members of the United Nations. Belize is also a member of the Organisation of American States. We have made clear our readiness to participate with others in any consultations Belize may request on its future security. Any such discussions would of course be confidential between the parties concerned.

  Armed Forces (Operational Capability)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list all of the sources of the data that he uses to assess the operational capability of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how he measures the operational capability of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central assessments of operational capability are informed by both quantitative data and 132
  military judgment reported up the chain of command; to list all the original souces could be done only at disproportionate cost. The various quantitative indicators include manning levels, the operational availability of key equipment, the level of warstocks and the recent collective training achieved by headquarters and units. In addition, operational analysis, or war-gaming, can be used to measure the likely operational effectiveness of forces earmarked for contingent military tasks.

  Bedrooms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bedrooms his Department maintains in(a) the MOD building, Whitehall and (b) elsewhere in central London; what is the rate of occupancy of these bedrooms; and what proportion of these are reserved for the use of civil servants and service personnel who are not based in London but are required to visit his Department's offices in London.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are a small number of bedrooms in MOD main building, Whitehall—including PINDAR—for the use of essential service and civilian personnel and duty staff. None of this accommodation is appropriate for use by Crown servants visiting my Department's offices in London. We are also responsible for a number of Army messes in the London area; there are 2,032 beds—some in shared rooms—of which 1,883 were occupied on 3 May 1994 by personnel employed or on a course. On that date, 143–7 per cent.—of the beds were available to civilian and military personnel.

  Hotels, Central London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's annual expenditure on hotel accommodation in central London.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department introduced new subsist-ence rates for civilian and service staff on 1 December 1993 to reflect discounted hotel charges. The total cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in central London between that date and 31 March 1994 was estimated to be some £626,000.

  PINDAR
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out into future uses of PINDAR.

  Mr. Hanley
  The PINDAR joint operations centre provides the Government with a protected crisis management facility. While all aspects of Defence support are currently under examination as part of the defence costs study, there are no plans to change the present role of the centre.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 997, if he has now received the consultants' reports on the environmental assessment of depleted uranium firing at the Kirkcudbright and Eskmeals ranges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have not yet received the report. This is an important study and the contractor has identified several
  133
  lines of inquiry which need to be followed up and which require additional time. The draft version of the report is now expected to be available to officials within the next few weeks.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information to which the public may wish to have access and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department currently makes use of the Internet—particularly the unclassified electronic mail facility with its ability to transmit information rapidly worldwide. Owing to the unclassified, open nature of the network there is, however, no intention of using the Internet for defence communications.

  Our press releases are issued electronically through the Central Office of Information and are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis.

  Consideration is being given to the provision of access to the Internet through the departmental library as an enhancement to existing information services. The introduction of my Department of further roles for the Internet would however be conditional on the development of adequate security measures to protect sensitive information.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Forward Look"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the(a) budgeted and (b) total cost of producing the package, "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994"; how many copies have been produced and distributed; and to whom they have been distributed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Office of Science and Technology set a budget of £30,000 to produce the 1994 "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology". The costs of printing, publishing and distributing were borne by HMSO which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue. HMSO produced a total of 1900 copies of which 1,000 copies were purchased by the OST for official use. After discount the total cost to the OST was £24,000.

  Approximately 800 copies of the "Forward Look" have ben distributed to date by the OST to parliamentary bodies, Government Departments, research councils, higher education funding councils, higher education institutes, research and technology organisations, trade and industry
  134
  associations, professional institutions of scientists and engineers, learned societies, members of advisory bodies on S and T, S and T counsellors in United Kingdom embassies and overseas embassies based in London. Copies are on sale through HMSO, its agents and other booksellers.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are 189 portable telephones, 195 pagers and nine car telephones currently in use in the Cabinet Office—excluding 10 Downing street—its agencies and the Central Office of Information at an annual cost of approximately £289,000. Information in respect of HMSO is not held centrally.

  The equipment is made available to those personnel who need to keep in contact with the office for official purposes.

  Civil Service Commission
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many executive search agencies the Civil Service Commission currently uses; how many it used in(a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what was the annual cost of the use of such agencies in each of those three years;

  (2) for how many recruitment posts the Civil Service Commission employed executive search agencies in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Davis
  On 1 April 1991 the Civil Service Commission was replaced by the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency. All recruitment costs, including those of using search consultants, are now met by Departments and agencies; prior to 1991 the general position was that they met the cost of recruitment below executive officer level.

  There is no information held centrally on the use of search consultants in 1979 or 1985 though it seems unlikely that much, if any, use was made of them at that period. The decision to use search consultants and the choice of consultants is one for Departments and agencies. The Civil Service Commissioners' annual report for 1992–93 records that six search consultants were used for 11 appointments approved by the commissioners at grade 5 level and above in that period. Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what budget the Civil Service Commission had for recruitment in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the proportion spent in each of those years on executive search agencies.

  Mr. David Davis
  On 1 April 1991 the Civil Service Commission was replaced by the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners and the Recruitment and
  135
  Assessment Services Agency. All recruitment costs, including those of using search consultants, are now met by Departments and agencies; prior to 1991 the general position was that they met the cost of recruitment below executive officer level.

  The Civil Service Commission's budget for recruitment was £5,024,000 in 1979–80, £10,066,000 in 1985–86 and £12,288,000 in 1990–91. No figures are held centrally for the costs of using search consultants; these costs are paid direct by the Departments and agencies which use them.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severely Disabled Premium Awards
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many review hearings for people awaiting payments due to them under the severely disabled premium awards have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed by his honour Judge Thorpe, who is responsible for the Independent Tribunal Service, that to date 451 appeals have been successful and 426 unsuccessful.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that any new incapacity assessment for ME sufferers will take account of the variability of ME; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Departmental studies have researched the extent to which certain factors such as fatigue and variability affect capacity for work. This research has been incorporated into the development of the medical test so far.

  People with conditions such as ME may be able to carry out the various activities in the test once but cannot maintain this performance because of cumulative fatigue. The all-work assessment will take into account the fact that a person must be able to repeat activities over a period of time to be capable of work. In the assessment, the Benefits Agency medical services doctor will consider a person's abilities over time, rather than the person's optimum performance.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many clients are receiving help from the independent living (1993) fund; how many applications have been refused since the fund started operating; and what percentage of its first year budget of £4 million has been spent.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that, as at 3 May, there were 268 severely disabled people receiving payments from the fund. In a further 135 cases, offers of help had been made, but had not yet been taken up by the client. Since 1 April 1993 the fund has refused 443 applications.

  I am further informed that the 1993 fund spent £841,858 in its first year of operation; representing 21 per cent. of the first year budget.
  136
  The fund estimates that the full year costs of the case load taken on in its first year will be around £6.28 million in this financial year, assuming current trends.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the Government's plans for combating discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government have already made considerable progress in this area through a policy of education and persuasion, backed up where necessary by targeted legislation. We propose to consult widely on further measures in five key areas.Proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people in the field of employment, as we recognise that the quota scheme may not be the most effective instrument for improving the work position of disabled people.
  A right of access to goods or services where there is no physical barrier or safety risk.
  Codes of practice on the provision of financial services, and extended roles for the banking and building society ombudsmen to cover cases of unjustified discrimination against disabled people.
  Extending the application of the Building Regulations as they affect the needs of disabled people.
  A new independent body to advise government on issues relating to discrimination against disabled people. This body would work closely with existing statutory bodies representing the interests of disabled people and would report regularly on progress towards reducing and removing discrimination as well as making recommendations for further improvement.

  Following consultation, we will consider assisting in the drafting of any necessary workable and practicable legislation.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exempt all payments made in criminal injuries compensation from capital thresholds for the purposes of benefit claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Special rules for personal injury compensation payments mean that the capital value is ignored entirely for benefit purposes provided that the funds are placed on trust for the benefit of the injured person. There are no plans to change these rules.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has available on the number of claims where benefit was(a) disallowed or (b) reduced as a result of capital acquired from criminal injuries compensation.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate for(a) England and (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom for each available year of (i) the numbers of absent parents who have been assessed by the Child Support Agency and (ii) the proportion of those who have made payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the Chief Executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  137
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 10 March 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of people assessed by the Child Support Agency, and the number of people paying child maintenance.
  138
  To the end of March 1994, 205,500 absent parents had been assessed by the Agency. I regret that a breakdown between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is not available.
  With regard to how many absent parents are paying, the Child Support Computer System records client's details on an individual case by case basis, and it is not currently configured to produce information on the total number of absent parents paying maintenance.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Game Licences
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to abolish game licences.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the matter is still under consideration. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will my noble friend accept somewhat muted thanks for that reply? Is he aware that there were just 44,000 game licences issued in 1993 relative to 47,000 in 1992, which is a drop of some 7 per cent? Can he advise the House whether there was a similar decrease in shotgun licences issued? If there was not such a decrease—which I rather suspect —does he acknowledge that the percentage illegality rate has now increased to over 90 per cent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend does a lot of arithmetic with the figures that he produced, some of which is hypothetical. He is quite correct that the number of game licences has dropped. The number of shotgun licences in operation at the end of 1992 was 689,236 in England and Wales and 72,143 in Scotland.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fees for game licences are probably less than, if not equal to, the collection charges? Is this not a nonsense similar to dog licences, whereby taxpayers are asked to subsidise the collection charges for a licence? Whether it be a dog licence or a game licence, it probably costs more money to collect than is received, does it not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend has a point. The Home Office decrees that there should be a game licence. It is an excise licence and Customs and Excise come under the Treasury. The Post Office collects the licence and the Home Office pays the Post Office £225,000 to collect the fee. The income, which amounts to £220,000, goes to the local authorities. For that reason we are considering whether or not they should be contingent.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the Minister say how many Conservative MPs have shotgun licences and to what use they intend to put those shotguns ?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one often wonders what is in people's minds, but I do not think that the noble Lord should infer anything nefarious.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that I am perhaps the only
1428
Member present who has a valid game licence in his pocket at the moment? Will he take note of the fact that he has until 31st July to make up his mind and that we all very much hope that he will have done so by then?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope to have made it up by then, too.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that privatisation of game licences is not under consideration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not exclude the consideration of anything. However, so far as I know, privatisation of game licences is not one such matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Game Licences Act 1860 received Royal Assent on a Monday and that in that year the Monday was 13th August?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting piece of information which I am sure your Lordships will be deeply grateful to my noble friend for expounding.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether consideration is being given to incorporation of the game licence within the gun licence, irrespective of the different authorities involved? People could opt out if they did not wish to take the gun licence. Does my noble friend agree that such a system would immeasurably increase the revenue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that point is being considered. Not everyone who has a shotgun licence wants a game licence. A shotgun licence is a licence to obtain a shotgun. A game licence is an excise duty. That is why the matter becomes rather confused. It is being considered but I doubt whether we shall go down the route suggested by my noble friend.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what the 700,000 people, less 44,000 people, do with their guns if they do not shoot anything?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have never asked them.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, will it perhaps spur on my noble friend in his endeavours before the 31st July to know that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Country Landowners' Association are totally in favour of the abolition of game licences?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords. Quite a lot of consultation has taken place. The views vary depending on the perspective of those who are consulted. All of them support as simple a system as possible. I am not surprised that the two organisations to which my noble friend referred wish to see game licences abolished.

United Kingdom Passport: Design
2.38 p.m.
Lord Whaddon Lord Whaddon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the design of the new United Kingdom passport.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the new-style British passport is in a common format which has been agreed with our European partners. The United Kingdom Passport Agency is, however, currently reviewing the design and security features of the passport in order to ensure that they meet developing needs.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that courtesy is important in this life, particularly towards visitors? Has he observed that the new passport eliminates the normal style of the name of the holder being on the front? For instance, Mrs. Brown is now shown as "Brown, Mary, female" on the back page. It is impossible for those observing the passport to address the lady by her normal mode, whether it be Miss, Mrs., Ms., Dr. or Reverend. Does not the noble Earl agree that the passport could be improved by restoring the former style of including the name on the front cover? Is it necessary to downgrade such an important document? Are the Government incapable of defending British practice when it is obviously the best?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government defend British practice constantly and with great success. The idea of one's name being shown on the front of a passport was attractive under the old system. However, the new system does not permit that. I agree that nomen dignitatis is desirable. That is the reason we are considering whether or not it is possible to adjust passports to include the title Mrs, Miss, Ms, Professor or Doctor on the front of the passport.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my passport actually contains the word "Baroness" on the back page?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that that is wholly suitable.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would it not be possible for each country in the European Community to have passports in a different colour? We can then go back to the dark blue that we had while retaining the smaller size which is rather more convenient.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that would fuse the system completely. The "common format" refers to passports being the same size and colour and containing the same data. To go along the route suggested by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would not be possible because it would not come within the common format.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, will the noble Earl consider presenting the new passports in either Welsh or English for the people of Wales?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the people of Wales are part of the United Kingdom and therefore come quite happily within the common format of the new passport in the same way as they did the old one.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what consultations took place and with whom before the new passport was designed? Did not the Prime Minister
1430
make an award under the Citizen's Charter to the Pensions Agency for its work on passports? However, none of us knows why. Can the noble Earl enlighten us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the common format of the passport comes as a result of discussions within the Council of Ministers and complies with European Community Resolution No. 7098/81. The United Kingdom was very much in the lead in helping to ensure a passport in right and proper order within the Community.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the common format passport is now machine readable, as was originally intended? Also, is the equipment for that purpose adequately available?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is machine readable. But, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will have observed, when he returns to this country all he needs to do is wave his passport—I believe it is known as the "Bangemann wave"—because people returning to this country do not need to have their passports read. Countries such as the United States of America and Canada possess reading machines. If one were to visit those countries doubtless one's passport would be read by a machine if the airport to which one flew was lucky enough to have one.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend guarantee that there will not have to be a referendum upon this important subject?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, heaven preserve us from such a thought!
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the Minister assure me, as the holder since February of a new flimsy passport which is already showing signs of wear and tear, that Her Majesty's Government made contingency plans to deal with the inevitable increase in applications for the replacement of passports which fall to bits during their currency period?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Passport Agency is doing very well. The targets for renewal are down to four weeks between January and June, three weeks in July and August and two weeks between September and December. The overall average maximum turn-round is nine working days for the year as a whole and at the present time it is about two weeks. I do not think the noble Baroness need worry too much.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that people from other Parliaments with whom I have visited South Africa and other places are surprised to find that Members of your Lordships' House and another place do not hold what are called "diplomatic" passports? I am not necessarily seeking one. But is there any intention to introduce that system for Members of the United Kingdom Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter under consideration but as yet no decision has been made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl may recognise that he did not answer the question of my

1431
noble friend Lady Mallalieu. The new passports tend to disintegrate. Can the Government assure us that when my noble friend's passport disintegrates the passport office will be in a position immediately to issue a substitute?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought I answered the question of the noble Baroness appropriately. I recall answering questions at this Dispatch Box a few years ago when everyone was complaining that it took too long for passports to be renewed. I tried to explain to the noble Baroness that there has been great success in reducing that time. It is unlikely that her passport will disintegrate all of a sudden and therefore she will have a fortnight in which to replace it. However, if she finds that it does suddenly collapse, I shall do my best to ensure that she receives a new one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl then substitute himself for the passport office so that my noble friend can apply directly to him for a new passport?
Earl Ferrers: No, certainly not, but I am always happy to be used as a post box.

Doncaster College for the Deaf
2.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the Further Education Funding Council's decision not to accept Doncaster College for the Deaf as a recognised college of further education for the deaf.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th April and again yesterday to explain that the Further Education Funding Council has confirmed that it will continue to fund places for students with learning difficulties and disabilities at Doncaster College for the Deaf in cases which meet the council's published criteria for such placements.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer and indeed for the letters that I received and the copies of letters to other people that she has sent me. But I persist in the question because the education of 16 to 19 year-olds with learning disabilities is an important one, so I thought it was a good thing to air this problem. Is it correct that it is the responsibility of LEAs to buy placements at independent specialist institutions for young people of 16 to 19 provided that they have a statement and that the Further Education Funding Council has responsibility for buying placements if there is not a statement and if the college is educationally appropriate? Is Doncaster College educationally appropriate; and is it the Further Education Funding Council which decides whether it is or not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to make the distinction between those young people who have a statement and those who do not. Both under the existing rules and under the new
1432
rules it will be important for local education authorities to assess the further education needs—the post-16 needs —of a child at the age of 14 and 15 so that all of this is thought through in advance. For a child who has a statement and continues with a statement, it is the responsibility of the local education authority. That has been properly recognised in the split of funding between the FEFC and the local authorities. For all other students post-16, depending on whether they go to a school or an FE college, the local authority or the Further Education Funding Council meets the cost. But they have distinct and definite obligations to young people with special needs.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that up. The Minister did not answer the last part of my question about Doncaster College being considered an appropriate educational institution and whose responsibility it is to decide that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Doncaster College is responsible for providing education on both counts. First, at 16-plus it is an extension of a school and therefore it is highly appropriate for a local education authority to make a placement for a statemented child and to meet the costs of that placement. It is also entirely proper, and indeed it is done, that the Further Education Funding Council will meet the needs of young people with special educational needs who do not have statements. So it is possible for the FEFC to fund Doncaster College, as it is for local education authorities to fund places at the college.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are perhaps two problems here? One is the longer term problem where the local education authorities perceive substantial financial benefit in not giving students over the age of 16 statements so that they then become the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council. That long-term dispute is causing a hiatus in the supply of students to Doncaster College for the Deaf which is resulting in it facing extinction while the dispute is being sorted out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important issue but I should like to reassure him on a number of points. First, a local education authority is responsible for young people up to the age of 19. If a young person has profound deafness and is statemented, it is the responsibility of the local education authority to be concerned about provision via a statement post-16. Therefore it is important that the local education authority continues with its obligation to young people with deafness or any other disability that might be the subject of a statement. It is also the obligation of the Further Education Funding Council to meet the adequate needs of people with special needs who fall short of being statemented. The Further Education Funding Council has done a great deal of work on this matter to clarify the situation. It has invited the principal of Doncaster College to come and discuss the problem. It has offered to issue guidance. Only yesterday sought a detailed reply to the submission, which I know is in the hands of many noble Lords, answering point by point

1433
and clearing up the confusion between the distinct funding responsibilities of the FEFC and local authorities.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we are all greatly encouraged that the Further Education Funding Council is to meet the principal of Doncaster College? Can she give an assurance that when this meeting has taken place the Further Education Funding Council will write to all similar institutions on the basis of that conversation and clarify the situation, as there is wider anxiety following the incidents at Doncaster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must make it clear that the Further Education Funding Council will continue to meet its obligations under the Act. But it is the local education authorities which continue to be responsible for young people with statements. For someone with blindness or deafness, or indeed both or another disability, who is the subject of a statement, and where the conditions of that pupil do not change at the age of 16, the local authority must accept the responsibility. However, the FEFC will also fund places at the college. On the noble Lord's second point, the FEFC will continue to clarify the point with any institution. I know that the college at Derby has been concerned about this area of funding. The FEFC will continue to make as clear as possible the distinction between the two sectors.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it right that some students are still missing out and are not being funded? That is my understanding.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not true but it relates to a point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. One of the problems last year was that the local authorities were using, sadly, as a mechanism not statementing a child post-16 in order to allow the bill to fall to the FEFC. Last year the FEFC picked up some of those people precisely because it did not want young people to fall through the net. What it is trying to do now is to get back on a proper footing, as befits the legislation, so that local authorities have their responsibilities and meet their responsibilities under the Act. But what caused the confusion was the Further Education Funding Council doing the decent thing by young people last year.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the guidance to which the Minister referred make the position absolutely clear so that local authorities cannot then avoid any responsibility which they have for statemented children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, only last evening we had a good debate on the code of practice for young people with special needs. There is definitely a great deal of guidance contained within that code of practice for local education authorities. What we are saying to local education authorities—and it is well within the code of practice—is that they must consider the medium and longer-term needs of young people with special needs, particularly those with statements, much earlier
1434
in the process—not when they are 16 but when they are 13, 14 and 15—so that all the arrangements can be properly made in advance.

Bullying in Schools
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend the Parent's Charter to ensure that all complaints of school bullying are investigated by the school and any necessary action taken.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the department has prepared a leaflet offering parents advice on how to approach schools if their child is being bullied and what to do if they are not satisfied with the school's response. Parents will also have the opportunity to raise concerns about bullying with school inspection teams, who must seek the views of pupils, parents and teachers on the incidence of bullying and the school's response. Given these measures, I do not think there is a case for further amending the Parent's Charter.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will do all she can on this subject, but what makes her think that guidance and advice and inspectors will succeed now when they have failed in the past? Is she aware that when Childline recently set up a bullying helpline there were no fewer than 18,995 calls about bullying? Is not the best way of tackling bullying to require every school to investigate complaints and then take action? If that can be incorporated into the Parent's Charter, fine, but if it cannot, we should bring forward other measures and insist that they are carried out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. More guidance and more words on paper are not going to make a difference unless schools, parents, the community at large and those who should be listening to the silent pleas of young people who are being bullied listen to those pleas and take action. That is what matters—the action taken. The most difficult aspect of bullying is not schools taking action when they know about it but finding a way in which young people in school will admit that they are being bullied. That is the problem. We shall do what we can.
We have produced a leaflet for children saying "Don't suffer in silence". We have produced a leaflet for parents and families. We have produced a package for the schools as well. We are also making a film which will be frequently shown on television appealing to young people to let somebody know—a friend, a neighbour or someone else they trust—so that the system knows that the child has a problem.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are much impressed by the effort being made against this sometimes dangerous circumstance? We welcome what is being done by the Government and

1435
hope that my noble friend and her colleagues will monitor what is going on and in a year's time consider whether more is needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. This is a very vexed issue. It is something which we must continue to monitor and leave no stone unturned to do what we can to help young people to give voice to the fact that in some cases their lives are being destroyed by bullying. In terms of complaints, what we do not want to do is to single out bullying as something which schools must take seriously in the complaints system. Schools are now required to take all complaints seriously, whatever they are about. To single out bullying as one instance leaves a very large number of other issues which are also the subject of complaint. There is a general obligation on schools to take complaints seriously. We would regard a complaint about bullying as something which the school must take very seriously indeed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would be the first to agree with my noble friend that schools must take this matter very seriously. Should not all schools have policies for dealing with bullying in the same way as they have to have policies for sex education and various other parts of their operation within the school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that again is a very good point. All schools now must have policies for almost everything. That includes discipline, pastoral systems, sex education, religious education and so forth. These policies must be discussed with the parents. The key here is to involve parents in the process of trying to achieve the aims of the school. So my noble friend can be reassured that that is the case.
The other insurance policy, if I can put it like that, is the inspection system now. Schools are visited every four years. Allowing parents, either individually or collectively, to make their views known to the inspectorate about the school will go a very long way to help. They can either say something publicly or very privately to the inspection team, who can take the matter into account when inspecting the school.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of the long-term psychological damage and grotesque waste of talent that can result from bullying, will the Minister accept that we are all encouraged by the action which she and her department are taking to deal with the matter? Does she agree that in order to be firm in dealing with bullying, the ethos and the values which are operative in the school and in the community at large are very important? Does she further agree that the best way to provide a favourable environment for dealing with bullying is to emphasise the importance of a caring society in which we are all concerned for our fellow beings and that we are not just one person against another with the devil take the hindmost?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the heart of a good society is good individuals. Schools are in the business of concerning themselves with the wholesomeness of young people, and that means concerning themselves with the self-discipline of young people. The ethos of
1436
the school is taken into account when the inspectorate visits a school. It looks to see what is said in the glossy brochure and in fact what happens in practice. I have read many glossy brochures and know that all schools claim to be caring, nurturing establishments, aiming to achieve the potential of all children. But, frankly, some of them are like St. Trinian's on a bad day.
The important thing is that the reality is properly tested by observation. The tragedy when a young person loses his or her life as a result of bullying is that so often the parents, other members of the family and often the school were unaware that there was a problem in the first place. The key is to make sure that young people open up about their unhappiness in school.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the leaflets because they are very good indeed. They are very strong and convey an important message. What we want is for every school to have an anti-bullying policy written into the prospectus, winning the co-operation of parents, and the situation being carefully monitored. If we can get that, it will do even more than the noble Baroness is doing already, on which I congratulate her. We need a firmer hand to stop this awful malaise in schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the leaflets and other documents will go a long way to help schools to address this issue. As I believe the noble Lord knows, we have paid for a special study to be done by Sheffield University. Much of the information in these documents has arisen from that research.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Incapacity benefit: entitlement]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("364") and insert ("196").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reinstate the payment of long-term benefit at 28 weeks as now, rather than delaying payment to 52 weeks as written into the Bill. The Bill extends the period classed as "short-term incapacity" to 52 weeks. That means that benefit entitlement is delayed for a full year resulting in a lower level of payment than is currently available under invalidity benefit. The amendment seeks to restore the current position whereby long-term benefit is payable after six months of incapacity. Redefining long-term incapacity as starting after one year represents a substantial reduction in benefit even for those passing the more stringent incapacity test who could be regarded as those genuinely incapable of work.
One of the main arguments which has been put forward for delaying benefit entitlement is that it is because the definition of long-term incapacity has been changed. During all stages of the Bill in both Houses the Government have only justified this redefinition on the basis that it is a more reasonable period than 28 weeks. In Committee my noble friend Lord Astor said:
"We consider that 52 weeks is a better definition of long-term incapacity".—[Official Report, 19/4/94; col. 101.]

1437
Yet since 1971, when it was introduced by a Conservative Government, invalidity benefit for long-term incapacity has been payable after 28 weeks of sickness benefit. Payments for long-term incapacity for people without a national insurance record will, however, still begin at 28 weeks. Severe disablement allowance, which will have the same test of incapacity as the new incapacity benefit, is payable in full with age additions after 196 days of incapacity. In my view, it is ludicrous to have different definitions of long-term incapacity.
Although it has been argued by Her Majesty's Government that occupational cover is available to people during these crucial weeks, it is by no means the general rule. Even the department's own figures show that fewer than one in four people on invalidity benefit have such cover. The arguments put forward so far are not convincing. I suggest that rather than designing a benefit to target the needs of disabled people, the Government are more concerned with cost cutting.
Delaying long-term entitlement means that until the 52nd week of incapacity, the basic rate of benefit is not awarded at the full rate; that there is no allowance for children; that no full allowance for a non-working partner can be paid and that no allowance based on the claimant's age is payable. In Committee, a government amendment introduced payment at 28 weeks for people with a terminal illness where life expectancy is six months or less, and I welcome that. However, other groups with considerable needs will still have to wait. Even people with severe disabilities or progressive conditions will have to wait a year for full benefit.
From weeks 29 to 52 a basic rate of £52.50 is payable —a loss under the Bill of £5.10 per week, which is £122.40 by the end of the first year. Awarding the full rate of benefit at 28 weeks would reduce the savings that the Government expect to make by £110 million in the current financial year and £150 million in 1996–97. No children's allowance is payable under the Bill. The loss of a child's allowance amounts to £11 per week for an only child; and a married claimant with two children will lose £45.65 per week, which amounts to something over £1,000 by the end of the first year.
The adult dependency increases will not be paid at the full rate. Claimants with adult dependants will not be able to receive the full dependants increase until the end of the first year. People with no dependent children in the household lose most. For a married claimant under 40 with no children, the loss is £51.75 per week, which amounts to £1,242 between the 28th and 52nd weeks of incapacity—a large sum of money.
No age allowance is payable. Age allowances, now payable from the 28th week of incapacity with invalidity benefit, will similarly be delayed. Because of the change in the age bandings, the losses will depend on the age when the claimant became incapable of work. The over-45s will lose £3.80 per week. People between the ages of 40 and 45 will lose £1.50 per week and those aged between 35 and 40 will lose £6.05 per week. The net saving resulting from delaying the payment to 52 weeks is estimated at only £10 million per year.
Delaying payment of the age allowances and
1438
dependants allowances will penalise older people who become disabled in the future. It represents a substantial reduction in benefit but without any evidence that claimants' needs have been reduced correspondingly. One of the consequences of limiting payments between 28 weeks and 52 weeks is that people could be forced to live on a level of income which is often below that of income support. Someone who is disabled with a non-working partner and two children under 11 would be entitled to only £79.40 per week. That is over £16 per week below their income support entitlement. Contrary to original intentions for invalidity benefit, for the first time in over 20 years substantial numbers of people could become reliant on means-tested support during those weeks.
Delaying full incapacity benefit for a full year will also have a knock-on effect for entitlement to the disability premium. That is payable with means-tested benefits, such as income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. All depend on receipt of long-term benefit. At present, it is payable from the 196th day of incapacity. After April 1995, entitlement to the premium will be delayed until 52 weeks. That will mean that some people will have to pay more rent and council tax while at the same time having a lower disposable income. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to give brief but warm support to the amendment which has been so comprehensively and clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He gave a very clear explanation of it and I do not need to add much. As the noble Lord explained, delaying the long-term entitlement until the 52nd week of incapacity means that claimants do not get the full rate of benefit; that they do not get child allowance; the full allowance for a dependent spouse, or the age allowance. While I very much welcome the fact that the Government have introduced an amendment which means that at 28 weeks they will pay the higher rate for people with terminal illness, it still leaves other severely disabled people with a year to wait before receiving the higher rate of benefit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said in Committee (col. 104 of Hansard) on 19th April—I paraphrase—the moment that a person becomes incapable of work is the time of greatest expense, with mortgage and hire purchase payments to meet, and it is the time when expensive adaptations may need to be carried out to the home. That is the point also when one becomes subject to all the extra additional daily costs of disabled life for which the disability living allowance can never fully compensate. I hope that your Lordships will give the amendment your fullest support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has given a comprehensive account of people subjected to reductions in their disposable income. For a moment, that may appear simply as figures in a ledger. What we need to do is to translate those figures in the ledger into the actual experiences that are likely to result.

1439
By coincidence, April's Social Policy Bulletin of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux landed on my desk while I happened to be preparing for this amendment. It reports—this is only one example among hundreds that are possible—considerable difficulties being faced by clients with health problems who are struggling meet their telephone bills. Among the numerous cases, I refer to only one. It is a case from Sussex in which BT refused to negotiate repayments for an outstanding telephone account for a client with severe epilepsy who was caring for two children while her husband was in hospital because of mental illness. The client had 24-hour emergency call-out cover arranged with the local authority for use by her children should she have an epileptic fit. She was told by BT that it was not its fault if she needed a helpline.
That is the sort of thing that reductions in disposable income on this level are likely to mean. I question whether that is in the public interest and whether it is, on the whole, likely to lead to any reduction in public expenditure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this afternoon we are all shaping social security provision for the sick and the disabled. We are making decisions that will shape their benefit and their financial support. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, told the House, since 1971 invalidity benefit has been paid at the long-term rate after six months. Under the proposals, although the new incapacity benefit tests people and certifies that they are disabled and incapable of work at six months, nonetheless that benefit will not be paid at the full rate for another six months beyond that—that is, until 12 months have passed. In the intervening six months, those disabled people who qualify by the new medical test will nonetheless receive a benefit which will not only be much lower than invalidity benefit is now and much lower than unemployment benefit, but which will also be lower even than income support which has in the past, as I think we have accepted, set a minimum floor.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I quote figures to give the real incapacity benefit income for the many thousands of families with a disabled family member living with them. Allow me to round them to the nearest pound, include the disability premium, and add in or subtract child benefit, according to the benefit rules. So I am talking about net total income. A disabled married man with a 12 year-old child on invalidity benefit now receives £124 a week, and on income support £122 a week. On incapacity benefit he will receive £89 a week. That same man with two children now receives on invalidity benefit £143 a week, and on income support £130 a week. On incapacity benefit he will receive just £98 a week. That same man with three children on invalidity benefit now receives £163 a week, and on income support £145 a week. On the new incapacity benefit he will receive just £106 a week.
A married man in his fifties, whose children have grown up and left home and whose wife is not working and is perhaps caring for him, on invalidity benefit now receives £100 a week, and on income support £99 a week; in future he will receive £52.50 a week. That is
1440
what a disabled man and his wife will have to live on for a week. His benefit will be halved, falling even below the level of income support he now receives.
We are shaping that benefit. What would your Lordships say of a benefit which pays less if you are sick than if you are well; pays less if you have the higher costs of disability (diet, laundry, heating) than when you are well; and pays less when you cannot work than when you cannot for the moment find work? You would say that such a benefit was not humane, and you would be right. But what would you say of a benefit which, if you contributed to it through national insurance, pays less than if you had not contributed to it? The contributory national insurance benefit will pay less than non-contributory income support. That, you would say, is perverse, and you would be right.
What would your Lordships say of a benefit that pays the same to a single man as to a man and his wife, or pays the same to a couple with one toddler as it pays to a couple with three teenaged children, taking no account of family needs? You would say that was not decent, and you would be right. We can remedy that today. We can decide, if your Lordships please, that the point at which the tough new medical test at 28 weeks confirms that a person is genuinely incapable of work is the time at which such a person should receive the full higher rate incapacity benefit, as now, and not six months later.
The Treasury estimates that overall the Bill will produce savings of £1.5 billion. The amendment, we are told, would cost £150 million in a full year. So, instead of having savings of £1.5 billion, the Government would have savings of £1.485 billion. Your Lordships may think that that is not a large sum in terms of the total expected savings.
The Minister may argue that many disabled families need only a low benefit because they have an occupational pension. As this is a contributory benefit, for which they have paid, that should not be a relevant argument. But even if it were relevant, it is not true, because only 38 per cent. of disabled people have an occupational pension, and they tend to be white-collar workers. The majority—two-thirds—have no income other than this benefit. The Minister may argue that they can nonetheless turn to income support. They will have to, because where is the couple, disabled and with all the heating and laundry costs that that brings, who can live on £52 a week? Are we setting a contributory benefit for the disabled so low that if there are no private means, two-thirds of the disabled then have to turn to a second benefit (income support) to top it up, even to reach the minimum living standards, which requires them to apply to a second set of staff at benefit offices, go through a second bureaucracy, and experience additional stress and strain, stigma, cost and worry? If that is what we are sentencing them to, why have a disability benefit at all? Why not merely send them all off to income support and have done with it?
Our decision today is our decision and not the Treasury's. This is an all-party amendment. There are voices today from all around the House concerned about disability and benefit after someone has been certified by the new medical test as incapable of work. There are worries about that benefit being pitched below income

1441
support level. We hope on these Benches that the voices of your Lordships will be heard tonight and that we shall be asking the Commons to think again in due course.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps before the House comes to a decision, my noble friend the Minister will tell us what would be the cost of accepting the amendment. I do not believe that anyone disputes that most of the money spent would be going to good, excellent and indeed appealing causes. But experience, which, as your Lordships know, I had as someone responsible for administering national insurance, taught me, as I believe it has taught many of your Lordships, that the fact that benefits will do a lot of good, if granted, is not necessarily a conclusive argument for granting them.
It is always necessary for this House and another place to weigh against the benefits, which will undoubtedly be given by making this provision, the additional cost. Before making up your minds on this important amendment, which has been most eloquently moved and supported, your Lordships will want to know what would be the total cost of granting it and what repercussions that might have upon other aspects of social security.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the question should be put to the Minister net of any saving on income support which would result from carrying the amendment?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is for the Minister to decide how he puts it, but your Lordships' House—I include in particular the noble Earl—is capable of understanding, whichever way the Minister sees fit to put it. When the Minister is answering difficult questions of this sort, we should not attempt to lay down the terms in which he answers. We shall listen.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asks a legitimate question, but it is my impression that it has already been answered by my noble friend Lady Hollis and by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his admirable opening speech. The Minister can decide whether to vary the figures given by both—if I may so describe them—my noble friends.
The Minister says that the Bill is about targeting. That is right. There is no doubt that the Government are targeting. They are targeting sick and disabled people, picking them off and shooting them. They are damaging them greatly. The House has heard, with some measure of incredulity, about the cuts in the income of people who can ill afford any cut and who in fact need an increase.
Punishing the needy is a poor policy for any Parliament, but that is precisely what the Government's proposals are doing. Those people are being devastated and demoralised. I hope that noble Lords will heed this important amendment. There is no doubt that to delay the benefit for six months is to deprive, because people are sick and disabled throughout the whole period. After 28 weeks, they are confirmed as having been long-term sick and disabled. If that is confirmed there should be no argument—the payment should be made. The Minister
1442
says that 52 weeks is a more realistic definition of long-term sickness. It is more ruthless but it has nothing to do with realism. We all know that the true definition is clear after six months.
To define a person as long-term sick or disabled at 28 weeks but to refuse to pay benefit until after 52 weeks is devoid of all logic. Furthermore, it is arbitrary and unfair. We should be under no illusion that the Government's proposals are an echo of the depression years when the incomes of the poorest were cut. At that time, we were ashamed of the uncaring attitude of the government and we can avoid being made to feel ashamed again by voting for this splendid amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I am reminded of the years of the 1920s when a man not genuinely seeking work—the same phrase—where there was no work would be denied his dole. This is not a matter only of arithmetic but of the kind of country in which we live. I know from my experience that among the proudest people in the land are the poorest. There is a fierce pride among the poor and this proposal will humiliate those who have enough trouble as a result of the sickness that has been proclaimed by the doctor. To humiliate them is unworthy of this House and unworthy of the country of which we are a part.
I know some of these people who struggle to live —and they struggle. As I said in Committee, none of us has to struggle to live and none of us is afraid of what is coming tomorrow. However, we are dealing with people who are not in our position and the compassion for which both sides of the House is renowned should be revealed.
I know that the Minister has a difficult job in replying. I had the privilege of being a Minister for a long time and many times I had difficult jobs to do. I do not envy the Minister if he has to rise and say, no. I say to the House only that the Minister has his job to do; his brief is prepared whatever we say in this Chamber. His answer is ready but your Lordships have an answer in the Division Lobby.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke about the amendment in terms of fewer costs and statistics. However, there is another cost, as implied by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. It is the cost of human beings' health and well-being. Are we going to help the health and well-being of a man, a woman, a boy and a girl, or not? Any type of benefit is about helping and enabling a man, a woman, and their children if they are still living with them, to have a feeling of decent and reasonable security.
If the Government cannot accept the amendment they may have to provide income support, as has been suggested. They will have to provide some other kind of benefit and support to help the people who will need help. And for many of them the need is genuine. Let Her Majesty's Government try to recall the cost of goods. If a person becomes ill and cannot work as he would like, the costs increase. The Government should bear in mind

1443
the cost of children's clothes, shoes and so forth. One sees in this country money being spent freely—yes, one does—and therefore it cannot be that this country is as poor as it is supposed to be. One sees money floating about all around. Perhaps it does not come from a large majority, but I believe that the majority is larger than people think. If that is the case, surely this country can behave decently towards those who are really in need. Therefore, let Her Majesty's Government give a true and proper answer if they believe that this amendment cannot be accepted.
What are we about? Money is found for this and that but when it comes to people it seems that it cannot be found. We are concerned to help the minds, the souls and the bodies of men, women and children. What are we going to do? Let us see that we get our priorities right and, if need be, to make a sacrifice. Most of us in this Chamber have during our lifetime been prepared to make a sacrifice for one reason or another. We have made sacrifices in bringing up our children. As most people know, it is not only in war that we sacrifice—we sacrifice in believing in standards and values not only for ourselves but for our children. If we are prepared to make sacrifices for ourselves, our children and our immediate family—and if this is, as it is supposed to be, by tradition a Christian country—we should be prepared to sacrifice in a decent way for those who are genuinely in need. And the majority of claimants are genuinely in need. There may be some scroungers, but I believe that the majority are genuine. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, there is a healthy pride in the British people; whether they are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. I hope that the Government can give a decent answer otherwise they might find a surprise in the Division Lobby.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, when I took part in the debate in Committee I burdened your Lordships with personal experiences of three lengthy periods of illness in three different occupations. Your Lordships will be relieved and delighted to know that I shall not repeat those words today. Instead, I wish to tell your Lordships that only last week in the Library of this House I read the latest list of HMSO publications. One of those publications struck me forcefully—it stood out from all the others on the list. It was entitled How to Live on a Low Fixed Income and it was priced at £15. I now understand why HMSO is highlighting in its recent list of publications a document for those who have to live on low fixed incomes—in this case, £52.50 per week. The charge for finding out how on earth to make ends meet on £52.50 per week is £15!
Perhaps I may say with great respect that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked the wrong question. The question in this debate is not what would be the cost to the Exchequer if the amendment were accepted. This debate is about a benefit which is in place at present, which is paid for by the state, as it has been for the past 23 years since 1971, and which is now being taken away. That is what the debate is all about. Therefore, with great respect, the answer that we should hear from the Minister is not what will be the cost to the Exchequer if the amendment is accepted but what will
1444
be the savings to the Exchequer if the Government's proposals are implemented. Of course it is relatively easy to define savings in financial terms. But no one can estimate the hardship, misery and worry which will be caused if this policy is introduced.
I intend to speak only briefly. Twice—the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his excellent speech, and my noble friend Lady Hollis—mention has been made of the question of occupational pensions. Whether they are occupational pensions or benefits at a time of sickness is irrelevant. When occupational benefits or pensions were introduced in this country, they were not introduced, and far less encouraged, on the basis that they would be replacements for state benefit. They were introduced and encouraged on the basis that they would top up existing state benefits. If the Government are now saying that occupational benefits, be they pensions or sickness benefit, are to replace state benefits, today we are at the beginning of a very dangerous slippery path leading to the abolition altogether of state benefits for those who have contributed through their salaries towards the receipt of occupational benefits. It is a very dangerous argument for the Government to be promoting in support of their case. Therefore, I hope that they will make their position clear. Occupational benefits have always been a means of topping-up and not replacing. If the Government are saying now that those benefits, paid for by the employee, are to be a replacement for state benefits, they should make that clear so that we know where we are.
I do not wish to be too political, but this Government are perceived by the people to be adding injustice to injustice. That is why people voted in the way that they did last Thursday. I suspect that in the Euro-elections also the people will exact their price for the perception that the Government are adding injustice to injustice.
Naturally when people look at legislation they compare how we treat ourselves with how they are treated. I leave with your Lordships a thought about how we in Parliament treat ourselves. Prior to the 1987 election, a measure was pushed through another place about three or four weeks before the dissolution of Parliament to ensure that, if a Minister lost his job for any reason whatever—if he was sacked, replaced in a reshuffle or he resigned—his ministerial salary would continue for three calendar months from the date on which he left office. To put it bluntly and in stark terms, if the Prime Minister were to go this afternoon, his Prime Ministerial salary would continue until 10th August. That measure was pushed through, and I quote verbatim the reason:
"In order to allow Ministers to adjust to a lower level of income".
Perhaps I may say as an aside that I notice that all the Ministers who left office adjusted immediately to a higher level of income. We have scene very good examples of that in your Lordships' House.
But we cannot justify, and the Government should not try to justify, what is being done in this Bill to the long-term sick, on the one hand, and then handing out these goodies, on the other. That is why people in this country are so angry about the harsh treatment of different sections of our community.

1445
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that the Minister's brief has already been written. He will have to stand and read it whether or not he agrees with it. I have been in that position, and I am sure civil servants have been worried stiff when they saw me rise at the Dispatch Box in case I was about to change government policy. But the Minister before us has nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the amendment. If the Minister indicates that the Government will not accept the amendment, I plead with your Lordships to impose this amendment upon them and vote with those of us who support it in the Division Lobby.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Mon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said, it is not reasonable to assume that most people have savings and pensions on which to draw. Incapacity benefit will be all that most people have on which to depend financially.
Life for severely disabled people is very expensive indeed. The added stress of disability and not having enough money on which to live may just be the breaking point. Is it not wise to try to keep families together? I have known some cases where, in the first few weeks of severe disability, the partner of the person who has become disabled has panicked and left. That really happens. When the disabled person then finds that he does not have enough money on which to live, that can be the breaking point.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, we have heard a great many moving speeches and many figures have been quoted. When my noble friend replies perhaps he will tell the House what is the minimum sum that a genuinely disabled man who is married, with at least one child under the age of 12, will receive. Many of us will be concerned not only about the figures that have been quoted this afternoon but also about the effect that the proposal could have on children within families where disability suddenly strikes those families. That is a factual question which I hope the Minister will be able to answer when he winds up this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said that I would have a difficult job in replying to the debate. He always makes a persuasive argument but I shall seek to be as persuasive as the noble Viscount.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned to your Lordships a publication which cost £15, a copy of which is in your Lordships' Library. I believe that the only point which the noble Lord made was as to the importance and success of public libraries throughout the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that the Bill targets the sick and the disabled and is an echo of the depression years. I do not believe that it does that at all.
My noble friend Lord Milverton said that there is a cost involved. The Bill is all about providing a benefit. I should remind your Lordships that the budget which my department has this year is £88 billion. That is the
1446
budget for the Department of Social Security, and it is not an insignificant sum. For example, it is more than the budgets of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence put together.
I turn now to the amendment. I believe that it would assist your Lordships if I were first to answer the question about costs. According to how we see the amendment—and my figures are different from those of my noble friend—I believe that the cost of paying long-term incapacity benefit from week 29 would reduce public expenditure savings by about £45 million in the year 1995–96 and by about £60 million in the year 1996–97. Those figures are net of income support costs and the costing assumes that payment of long-term incapacity benefit is a passport to disability premium in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
The Bill introduces a new benefit payable at three rates. The longer the period of incapacity, the higher the rate. Short-term incapacity benefit will consist of a lower rate payable for the first 28 weeks of sickness which is equivalent to the current rate of sickness benefit, currently £43.45, and a higher rate payable after 28 weeks equivalent to the higher rate of statutory sick pay, which currently stands at £52.50 a week. Long-term incapacity benefit at a rate equivalent to the current rate of invalidity benefit (currently £57.60) will, with the exception of payments to the terminally ill, be payable after 52 weeks.
The restructuring will provide a basic income to those who cannot work and focus resources on those who are genuinely long-term sick. Your Lordships have asked why we need to restructure the benefit and introduce a new medical test. Our intention is to focus the benefit on those who are genuinely and medically long-term sick. That is the group which needs most support.
I make no apologies for once again pointing out that the Government must contain spending on sickness benefits. Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. It is second in cost only to retirement pension. Spending on that benefit has doubled in real terms in the past 10 years, from £2.7 billion to £6.2 billion. No responsible government could let that growth go on unattended. If we did, spending would grow by a further 50 per cent. or more in real terms by the end of the decade. This Government are determined to introduce a system which is affordable and which focuses benefit on those most in need.
The amendment is at odds with the Government's strategy of providing a sustainable and well-targeted system. Your Lordships must consider whether that expenditure would be a sensible use of resources. I believe that it would not be. Many claimants will have other resources, such as occupational sick pay, occupational pension, personal savings or income from a partner who is working. To pay after 28 weeks considerably higher rates of benefit would duplicate that provision. That would not be good targeting. It is important to remember that, where other resources are not available, the income-related benefits are available to top up payments of short-term incapacity benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about people falling below the level of income support. No

1447
one should fall below that level if they are able to claim income support. We believe that it would be irresponsible to raise the level of a contributory benefit —a non-means tested benefit—to the level at which no one would qualify for income support. The noble Baroness suggested that there was some stigma attached —:indeed, that was the word that she used—to claiming income support. I do not believe that that is right and I have to say that I find the remark somewhat insulting to those people who have to claim that benefit.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned the fact that SDA is payable at 28 weeks. However, SDA recipients are less likely to have worked and less likely to have other resources. As a consequence, we believe that it is right that the benefit should be payable from 28 weeks. My noble friend also asked whether we would consider extending the concession which the Government have agreed for the terminally ill to all groups that have been exempted from the medical test. We believe that most claimants will come on to incapacity benefit after receiving statutory sick pay for the first six months of incapacity for work. It is at that point that staff from the Benefits Agency will award the long-term rates. For many that will be the first day of state incapacity benefit. Adopting the exempt groups as a gauge of severity of incapacity would be a very crude measure. It would exclude some severely disabled people simply because their conditions range from mildly incapacitating to severe. Going on then to pay the long-term rate of benefit to exempt groups after 28 weeks on the grounds of the severity of disability would be inequitable.
My noble friend also said that 52 weeks was too long to wait for the disability premium. We believe that 52 weeks is a better definition of long-term incapacity. Indeed, long term incapacity is only one of the many routes into the disability premium paid with income support and other income-related benefits. The premium is also awarded to people who are in receipt of DLA, AA and SDA. It is also awarded to the registered blind. Those people will continue to qualify for the premium under the same rules and at the same time as now. The most severely disabled will not be affected. We do not believe that it is true that two-thirds of people will go on to income support. We estimate that, even after the changes, only perhaps a quarter will actually have to use income support.
If I understood her correctly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that people are tested as regards being incapable of work at six months and that, therefore, is long-term incapacity. The point is that one is tested for incapacity from the first day of a claim—that is, both now and in the future—through medical certificates from a doctor. There is no link between the test and the applicable rates of benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, talked about occupational pension schemes being a replacement for state benefit. It is not; indeed, that is not the case. It is a top up. When one considers SERPS, one contracts out of that scheme into an occupational scheme receiving a rebate on National Insurance contributions. It is not possible to receive an occupational pension and a full SERPS.
1448
My noble friend Lady Elles asked about the average amount of money that a person could earn, whether or not he was on benefit. As I am sure my noble friend will realise, it is most complicated to calculate the various different amounts. However, if my noble friend will bear with me, I hope that my reply will make some sense to her. The information on the number of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income is not available. Estimates of the percentage of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income and the average amount of income are as follows. We believe that 38 per cent. are occupational pensions; 78 per cent. are non-income related benefits; the figure for the community charge and housing benefit is 37 per cent; and the figure for income support and family credit stands at 7 per cent. I know that that is, perhaps, a complex answer to my noble friend's question. However, it is difficult to take the example of one person to try to explain exactly what the figure might be when one does not know the exact circumstances. Indeed, those circumstances could be very different because of the many different kinds of resources involved when people claim income support.
The Government looked at what might be a more balanced definition of long-term incapacity—a definition which would minimise the extent of duplication of provision but which would reflect the needs of long-term incapacity. We concluded that one year is a more reasonable measure of long-term incapacity. Many people want to and do return to work within one year of sickness. We must remember that people do not go on to invalidity benefit and stay on it forever; indeed, many people claim the benefit but later come off it. Where other resources exist, it is reasonable to expect that they should be used to support periods of short-term sickness. It is right that the state should shoulder more of the burden through the higher long-term rate of benefit.
Of course, there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes long and short term. It will always be a matter of judgment. By setting the definition at one year, we believe that we have struck a balance between the interests of taxpayers and contributors and the needs of long-term incapacity. I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment. It was rejected in Committee. This is exactly the same amendment as the one we dealt with then, and I urge your Lordships to reject it again today.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we had no vote in Committee; how could we reject it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Lord will remember, it was negatived in Committee, therefore it was rejected.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right when he says that the amendment was rejected in Committee. He forgets, however, to tell the House that prior to Committee stage I had assured him that I would not press it to a Division, and that I was attempting to withdraw the amendment when a Member of your Lordships' House, who was so much in favour of the amendment that he thought he would be helpful, asked

1449
that I should not withdraw it. It was therefore necessary, when the Question was put, for me to shout in favour of my own amendment. In order to bring the same amendment back at this stage of the Bill, I did not appoint Tellers, so, technically speaking, the amendment was negatived. Therefore my noble friend is being a little ungenerous in what he has said.
We have had a long debate. We have demonstrated how important this amendment is by the number of speakers who have spoken. Apart from my noble friend Lord Astor and myself, there have been 10. The vast majority have spoken in favour of the amendment. One important point is that I understood from what my noble friend said when replying to the amendment that he does not know what the minimum benefit would be. It strikes me therefore that there has not been considerable effort put in to finding that out—not by him but by his advisers —and that therefore this is not a Bill, as I said at the previous stage, that has been drafted by my noble friend's own department but rather by the Treasury. That is the impression that I am given. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said that it was a question of what sort of country we wish to live in. I think that we ought to accept this amendment. We are a civilized country. We should look after those who are genuinely incapable of work and we should do that properly. I feel I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to agree to this amendment.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Attlee, E.

Eatwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Ennals, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bancroft, L.

Falkland, V.

Bath, M.

Foot, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beloff, L.

Geraint, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brimelow, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Haskel, L.

Chapple, L.

Healey, L.

Chatteris of Amisfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Hothfield, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Howell, L.

Cox, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hughes, L.

1450

Hylton-Foster, B.

Peston, L.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Richard, L.

Kennet, L.

Rix, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rochester, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sainsbury, L.

Knollys, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Listowel, E.

Serota, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shannon, E.

Lockwood, B.

Soper, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stallard, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stedman, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar, C.

Strabolgi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Thurso, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milverton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wharton, B.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

[Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Addison, V.

Denham, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Aldington, L.

Donegall, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dormer, L.

Alport, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Annaly, L.

Elibank, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Astor, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Flather, B.

Birdwood, L.

Foley, L.

Blake, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goschen, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Granard, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Haig, E.

Burnham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Haslam, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hives, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Holderness, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hood, V.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kenyon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kimball, L.

Colnbrook, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Courtown, E.

Knutsford, V.

Cranborne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lyell, L.

1451

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Marsh, L.

Romney, E.

Merrivale, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mersey, V.

Selborne, E.

Milford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Middleton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mountevans, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Munster, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

[Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Sudeley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Thurlow, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tollemache, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Torrington, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Peel, E.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vivian, L.

Pike, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pym, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rankeillour, L.

Westbury, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.11 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 32 and insert:
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10.
These amendments are consequential on previous government amendments in respect of terminally ill claimants. As your Lordships may be aware, I tabled an amendment in Committee to bring forward the highest rate of incapacity benefit for people who are terminally ill. As a result the rate of short-term incapacity benefit payable will be equivalent to long-term incapacity benefit from the 29th week. It will include increases based on age and increases for dependants. The amendments I am moving today deal specifically with claimants who are terminally ill and over pension age.
The Bill makes provision for short-term incapacity benefit to be paid beyond pension age for up to 52 weeks in a spell of incapacity for work. The rate of benefit payable, as with sickness benefit now, will be based on a claimant's entitlement to retirement pension. After 52 weeks of incapacity claimants will be expected to claim retirement pension. Long-term incapacity benefit will not be available beyond pension age. I believe it is reasonable to assume that someone who falls sick before they reach pension age but who could return to work at some point should be able to receive incapacity benefit. If incapacity is prolonged then retirement pension is the correct benefit over pension age.
The amendments correct a technical defect which would have meant that claimants over pension age who are terminally ill would not have been able to benefit from the concession. The amendments go further than correcting this fault and allow these claimants to receive either the long-term rate of incapacity benefit which
1452
would have been payable had they not been over pension age, or the pension age rate of short-term incapacity benefit whichever is the more beneficial. After the maximum 52 weeks of short-term incapacity benefit, terminally ill claimants over pension age will transfer to retirement pension.
The amendments also allow references in the Bill to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate to be construed as references to claimants who have been entitled to short-term incapacity benefit for 196 days. This will ensure that all claimants, including those who are terminally ill or over pension age, will be able to benefit from the training and disability working allowance long-linking rules.
I am sure that your Lordships will welcome these changes. The number of people affected is comparatively small but the amendments offer significant improvements in these cases. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am glad to welcome the amendments. If I speak to them briefly that gives me the opportunity to thank the Minister for the very helpful letter that he sent on the point that I raised at Committee stage on the need to ensure that in the guidance, in the regulations and in the handling of the benefits the person who is terminally ill is not made aware of the fact by the way in which the regulations are explained. In his letter the noble Viscount said that:
"In particular, we will [be] seeking ways to ensure that claimants who are unaware that they are terminally ill, are not inadvertently made aware about the severity of their condition through the benefit system".
That is the point that we tried to ensure. That is extremely helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5:
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("age") to ("that") in line 40 and insert ("the weekly rate of short term incapacity benefit is, subject to subsection (4) below,").
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("that paragraph") and insert ("section 30A(2) (b) above").
Page 3, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert:
("(4) In the case of a person who has been entitled to short-term incapacity benefit for 196 days or more in any period of incapacity for work and is terminally ill, the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit payable, if greater than the rate otherwise payable to him under subsection (2) or (3) above, shall be equal to the rate at which long-term incapacity benefit under section 30A above would be payable to him if he were entitled to it.
For the purposes of this subsection a person is terminally ill if he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.
(4A) References to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate shall be construed as including short-term incapacity benefit payable to any person who has been entitled to that benefit for 196 days or more in a period of incapacity for work, notwithstanding that the rate of benefit is determined in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and:5 en bloc. I have just spoken to the amendments withAmendment No. 2.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert (""incapacity benefit after 196 days"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to reintroduce child dependant additions for the 29 to 52 week period, as is at present the position with invalidity benefit. The amendment is similar to one which was moved at Committee stage on 19th April. At that time my noble friend confirmed that the Government's approach was consistent with the long-standing arrangement whereby increases for children are paid with short-term benefits only if the beneficiary is over pensionable age. He said that prior to 1984 child dependency increases in short-term benefits were payable at a significantly lower level than with long-term benefits. Subsequent increases in child benefit had influenced the rate of child dependency increase.
My noble friend said that it had proved unnecessary to pay child dependency increases with short-term benefits and he did not believe that that would cause hardship. He went on to say that many people would be receiving additional income such as occupational pensions or sick pay from their employers, but they could claim income support if family income was insufficient.
However, when invalidity benefit was introduced in 1971 the Government—a Conservative Government—appear to have had a rather different view of the impact of disability upon a family. Speaking in the other place on 3rd May 1971 during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, the Secretary of State—then Sir Keith Joseph—said:
"We are for the first time proposing to treat the children of invalidity pensioners more generously. After all, one of the most tragic results of chronic sickness is the strain on the standard of living of a family containing children".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/5/71; col. 1017.]
While it is true that child benefit did not exist in 1971, family allowance did. Nevertheless, that administration recognised that there was a need to provide additional help to such vulnerable families. Substantial amounts of money are involved. Between the 29th and 52nd weeks of incapacity a family would, as I understand it, lose £235 for one child, £498 for two children and £760 for three children. I am not convinced by the Government's argument that families will be cushioned during that period against the delay in receiving additions.
In a Written Answer on 24th February this year the Minister of State said:
"We estimate that around 25 per cent. of people awarded incapacity benefit after April 1995 will also be entitled to income support between the 28th and 52nd weeks of incapacity. This represents an average at a point in time of 20,000 in 1995–96, and 30,000 in 1996–97".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/94; col. 367.]
How will the 75 per cent. who will not be eligible for income support manage?
On 31st March this year, the Secretary of State for Social Security was asked what estimate he made of the proportion of recipients of incapacity benefit who are likely to be receiving occupational pension payments between the 29th and 52nd week of incapacity, and after the 52nd week; and the basis for that estimate. The Minister said in a Written Answer that the information was not available.
It is an extremely important amendment. Children are the lifeblood of our society; they are our future. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we support the amendment. A few moments ago, an amendment was lost by 138 votes to 136 which would have brought forward the benefit of all disabled people who have passed the medical test and have been certified as incapable of work to the full higher rate at six months instead of 12.
This amendment is a fallback amendment to that position. The Minister moved an amendment which the House accepted—we welcomed it—that those who are terminally ill should enjoy the higher rate of benefit at six months. The amendment ensures that those families with children should also enjoy the higher rate of benefit at six months.
Almost all of those present are either parents or grandparents. We all know—do we not?—that children are costly. Yet unless we amend the Bill no allowance for children will be built into the new incapacity benefit. Children eat food, and require school dinners. They require jeans and trainers as well as clothes for school. They live in a home which probably requires an extra bedroom because they are there. They make demands regarding the wear and tear of the furnishings. A child wants to take part in school trips. He yearns for a bike and hopes to go occasionally with friends to the cinema or the swimming pool. None of that is unreasonable. Yet all the research shows that to maintain a child in the most modest way costs an additional £25 a week per child. That factor is recognised in the scales paid to foster parents. According to the age of the child the amount paid ranges from £45 a week to upwards of £80 a week for older, teenage children. The cost of a child is also recognised in the estimates made by the Child Support Agency for child maintenance of £40, £50 or £60 a week.
The cost of a child is even recognised within that most minimal of calculations, income support, where child allowance is worth between £16 and £36 a week, from which child benefit is deducted according to the age of the child. It is recognised in foster parent payments, through the Child Support Agency and in income support that children are costly; yet in this benefit no such recognition is made. No such allowance is built in until a disabled person has survived 12 months on lower rates of benefit. As a result, between the sixth month and the twelfth month incapacity benefit will be paid at the same rate where the family has one toddler or three teenage children. The only difference is that the family receives extra child benefit of £10 for the first child, and £8 for subsequent children. How can one bring a child up on £8 a week? We know that one cannot. That is why we seek support for this very modest fallback amendment which says that where there are families with children the higher rate of benefit should be paid from the sixth month as opposed to the twelfth, thus doubling from £10 to £20 a week the amount on which one brings up a child.
Children with a disabled parent already live in a family that is stressed. The parent is often in pain,

1455
unable to take walks, play football or engage in the activities that most families enjoy together. Disabled families already face higher outgoings for diet, laundry, food and heating. Let us not press those disabled families even further into poverty by denying the very existence of their children in the way that this benefit is constructed.
We narrowly lost the amendment which would have brought all people forward for receipt of higher benefit at six months. At the very least let us protect those families with children. We support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I may anticipate the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I believe that he was about to raise the issue of cost. If so, he is quite right to do so. I entirely agree about the need to consider costs. However, the noble Lord will agree that if we are to consider costs we must take into full account the unintended consequence and the spin-off. We must consider costs in a full way.
We are proposing to leave children short of income. I was not privileged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, make his original speech on the cycle of deprivation. When he initiated a debate on the family, I think in 1991, I was privileged to hear him repeat some of those arguments. As always, I did not agree with every conclusion that the noble Lord drew, but, as always, I could not listen to him without being compelled to think.
If we deprive children, we create problems for the next generation, the generation after that, and perhaps even beyond. For a small saving we may be creating costs which continue from generation to generation. That does not sound to me like a prudent way to handle public money. Perhaps the Government consider that they will be out of office by then and that it will be nothing to do with them. If so, I hope that this House, which is fair minded, will take a more enlarged view of the matter and will support the amendment.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the amendment to which I have put my name. I believe that it is a right, good and proper amendment. I leave the figures and other arguments to others. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the amendment specifically concerns children. As he said, our children are the future generation. How they have been treated, cared for and looked after while children will reflect on the country when they are older. I urge Her Majesty's Government to accept the amendment.
If the Government defeat the amendment, they will have to find resources from somewhere to help those in need. As has been said, in the long run the amendment represents a sensible policy. To make provision in any other way would not be sensible and might cost far more. Therefore nobly, rightly and properly, the amendment should be supported. It is a pity that there are not more Peers in the Chamber. If more Peers had been present my noble friend Lord Swinfen might have won his amendment. The honour of the House depends a lot on how many Peers are in the Chamber when important amendments are being discussed. Far more Peers should be present when certain amendments are discussed, and I do my best to attend. I hope that Her
1456
Majesty's Government will have some sense; otherwise I hope that my noble friend Lord Swinfen will be successful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with his usual percipience, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suspected, what point I would raise and, as so often, he is right. I. ask the Minister to tell us what the cost of the amendment would be to public funds and to the social security system by way of benefits, and the overall cost of administration.
I hope that the noble Earl does not think it unworthy to ask that. In truth and in fact, if he had been involved as long as I was in the administration of social security, he would know that every decision taken by a responsible Minister in charge of social security must be taken in the light of its cost. In my time, many delightful proposals would have been extremely popular but, frankly, they were too expensive. For that reason, they had either to be watered down or put in their place and phased in later.
It is always the fact that when your Lordships' House, another place or the Government consider any social measure, we consider its merits, its sentimental aspects and such matters as the possible effect on children. Then we must weigh against that the cost to the taxpayer or the national insurance contributor, or both. Therefore, because he is such an effective debater that he can easily make the worst case appear the better, I beg the noble Earl in future not to take the view that to ascertain the costs of a proposal is somehow unworthy. On the contrary, I suggest that it is utterly irresponsible for a Minister of any kind to advocate further expenditure unless he has worked out fully what the expenditure would be, how much it would cost and how it would be possible to fit the cost into his departmental budget or the Treasury accounts.
Therefore, I shall keep an open mind on the amendment until I have heard the cost. I hope that, in his usual efficient way, the Minister will tell us the full costs of the proposal.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, wish to add my support for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. One of the fundamental flaws of the Bill is that those who will be hardest hit will be families with children. The more children, the more benefit entitlement a family has to lose between the period of 29 weeks and one year. That is surely a situation we need to avoid.
The amendment will maintain the present position, at least for children. I believe that that is important for all children, but one group of families which has been particularly brought to my attention is where there is a disabled child. They will be particularly hard hit. Research published at the end of April by the NCH Action for Children shows that nearly two in three families with disabled children find that they are not managing well financially. More than four in five have extra costs because of their child's disability and say that those costs are not met in full by the benefit.

1457
Although a disabled child is entitled to benefit in its own right, the evidence shows that the family budget is used to meet many of the additional costs. One in 10 families said that they had gone into debt in order to meet those additional costs. So, for a family with a disabled child and a breadwinner who becomes incapable of work, life becomes financially very difficult indeed. The emotional stress of the breadwinner becoming ill or disabled so that he or she cannot work will be compounded by the financial stress. It is only right that we do all we can to protect the children in that situation. Is there not perhaps a special case for a family with a disabled child or children? I urge the Government to accept the amendment because 1994 is the Year of the Family and this is essentially a measure that will help families in time of great hardship.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may add a word of support for the amendment. In his masterly introduction of it, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, quoted Keith Joseph's comments on the strain that chronic sickness puts on the standard of living of a family containing children. I remember Alf Morris saying, probably in 1970 at the time of the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, that when one member of a family becomes disabled, the whole family becomes disabled. I warmly support the amendment which would take some strain off the family, with the problems which can stem from disablement, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. In the end, the problems can cost much more, not only in human but in financial terms.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked us to consider the cost of the amendment to the taxpayer. I am glad that other voices have been raised to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider more deeply the human cost, the social cost or—if it were a matter of self interest —even the cost to the Government in people's attitudes and disposition towards the Government in the places from which we come. I can tell the Government that many people working with the sick, working in institutions, those involved in the experience which has been described of caring for the sick, and those who seek benefit, have assured me strongly that the amendments we are considering today will have a sharper and deeper effect on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our community than almost anything we have discussed in the House for a long time.
I am deeply concerned that we should accept the amendment and do all that we can to modify the Bill to protect those who will be damaged by it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, on Thursday we shall discuss juvenile prisons for 10 to 14 year-old children. I ask noble Lords to think for a minute that some of the children about whom we are talking under this amendment may be put at risk. They may end up in prisons because of the pressure put on families where parents are unable to work. As the right reverend Prelate said, we need to consider all the social problems which
1458
go much deeper than the mere cost. I too will be interested to hear how much the amendment would cost. It is extraordinary that the Government do not have the information at hand when they are trying to draw up a budget.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that I have exactly that information to hand and have had it for all the amendments moved in your Lordships' House as the Bill has gone through. Perhaps I should answer straight away that the cost of the amendment would be £5 million a year. But, of course, there is no estimate of administrative costs as the proposal would be expensive to administer, bringing one of the increases in benefit out of line with all the others.
It is important that although we establish the cost we should ascertain whether there are sound reasons for the amendment. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, seemed to want the amendment to succeed as a consolation prize for losing the Division on an earlier amendment. The noble Baroness appeared to suggest that because on the last amendment the vote was close, that was a good basis for this amendment to be accepted. I do not think that that is a sound basis for good argument, good judgment or good government.
The right reverend Prelate said that people will be damaged. I hope to explain to him that such will not be the case and to deal with his concern. As I explained in Committee, it is the Government's intention that these increases should not be paid with incapacity benefit until 52 weeks of incapacity have elapsed except in cases where the beneficiary is over pension age or terminally ill. Our proposals simply follow the long-standing arrangement whereby increases for children are not paid with short-term benefits unless the beneficiary is over pensionable age. Currently, the period for which short-term benefit is paid is 28 weeks. In future, the short-term benefit will be paid for 52 weeks. It follows that child dependency increases for people under pensionable age should be available from that 52-week point also. If they became payable after 28 weeks, as proposed, the structure of dependency increases and that of the new benefit would be out of step.
Noble Lords have expressed concern that the new benefit will, in some cases, be paid at lower rate than income support before the 52-week point is reached and that this will lead to increased reliance on that benefit. It must be remembered that incapacity benefit is a non-means-tested contributory benefit. It has no regard to savings, occupational pensions or other income.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked what happens to people if they are not eligible for income support. Those people who are not eligible for income support, because they have other means, do not need income support.
It would be an irresponsible government who raised the levels of a non-means-tested contributory benefit to the extent that everyone on the contributory benefit was better off than on the means-tested benefit. If we wished to ensure that income support was never needed during periods of incapacity, we would need to increase the contributory benefit by an enormous margin. Successive

1459
governments have never seen that as a practical proposition, particularly as those who have resources of their own and are in least need would benefit the most.
Incapacity benefit will provide a basic level of income paid regardless of means to those who are incapable of work. Over 75 per cent. of people between the 28th and 52nd week of incapacity will not need income support because they will have additional resources such as occupational pensions and savings. Equally, there will be a proportion who will claim income support. Under the current arrangements many families on invalidity benefit have cause to rely on the additional help provided by that benefit for a variety of reasons. The fact that in future more families with children may qualify for income support is not a reason for paying CDIs (child dependency increases) in all cases before the 52nd week of incapacity.
Child poverty is not the issue. Child benefit forms the major plank of state help for bringing up children. Where the person is working, earnings will supplement child benefit. But when earnings are interrupted for a length of time, we recognise the need for extra help. For short-term contingencies, we maintain that it is right that claimants should look first to their own resources or, if necessary, to the income-related benefits. However, for long-term contingencies, child dependency increases will be available.
The fact is that the income-related benefits provide a much more effective means of helping families who are in financial need as a result of short-term incapacity than would child dependency increases. That is reinforced by the fact that we have used these benefits very successfully in recent years to target additional resources on families in need. Since 1988, significant extra help has been made available for this group, now amounting to some £1 billion a year. Cash benefits for poorer families are now among the highest in the EC.
My noble friend Lord Zouche suggested that the new arrangements will have a particularly damaging effect on families where there is a disabled child. But invalidity benefit and, the child dependency increases that are payable with it have never been designed to meet the extra costs arising out of disability. Specific benefits exist for that purpose. Since taking office we have in real terms more than trebled spending on benefits for disabled people.
The rates of child dependency increases that will be paid with incapacity benefit compare unfavourably with the applicable amounts for children in the income-related benefits. In fact, the child dependency increase rates compare well with their equivalents in income support. Currently, CDIs of invalidity benefit are paid at the rate of £9.80 in the case if the eldest eligible child and £11 for other children. These rates are paid on top of child benefit, providing an overall level of support of £20 and £19.25 respectively. In income support, the applicable amount for a child aged under 11 is £15.65, but child benefit is deducted from that amount, making the overall level of support less than for a child of the same age for whom a CDI is payable. In the case of children over 11, the balance shifts and income support becomes the more generous benefit. However, those
1460
comparisons show that child dependency increases, when viewed correctly as a supplement to child benefit, provide a very reasonable level of support for children.
Unlike the income support scheme, it would be inappropriate to provide a range of different child dependency increase rates tied to the age of the child. Such precise targeting would be out of place in the context of a contributory benefit, which is only designed to provide a broad measure of support.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter told your Lordships that we have to weigh the consequences, the costs and the benefits of the amendment. I believe that this amendment should not be accepted for the very good reasons that I have given. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with my explanation and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he tell the House what evidence he has to substantiate his statement. that the vast majority of people have alternative savings or pensions? Is it not the case that a great deal of research shows that the highest incidence of illness occurs among low paid and poorly housed people—people with very little money? Many of those people are also shown to have huge debt problems. Can the noble Viscount say whether it is definite that the vast majority of the people who are certificated as being ill will have alternative incomes?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my point was that if they do not have alternative incomes, they may well qualify for means-tested income support. Therefore they are supported by the state on that basis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sit down, will he confirm a figure that he gave in a previous debate to the effect that only 38 per cent. of the disabled have occupational pensions and the rest have to go elsewhere, either to savings or income support? That is my first question.
So that we get this matter into proportion, will he also confirm that the figures for a disabled man with a wife and three children (say, 14, 12 and 10 years-old) who is now on invalidity benefit has a total net income of £162.75, to be precise? That is what the family gets on invalidity benefit now. On income support now, that same family gets just under £145 a week. But in future, with incapacity benefit, that same family will get £106 a week. So they would drop from £163 to £106 a week. How can the noble Viscount justify that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness seeks to bandy figures with me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take exception to that remark.
Viscount Astor: I do not know whether or not the noble Baroness's figures are correct. Off the top of my head I cannot say that her figures are, or are not, correct. I do not know. The noble Baroness did not raise this matter in her speech and we are at Report stage. She can stand up and ask me a question before I sit down but I

1461
must say that the question did not seem to relate to what I said earlier. She also asked whether the figure that I used in Committee was correct. I do not have in front of me at this very moment the Hansard which records the figures I gave in Committee. I shall certainly look to see whether those figures are correct. I am sure that they are.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not want to argue about figures because I am not very good at them. However, because someone does not qualify for income support it does not mean that they will not suffer hardship. They may have nothing in savings but be one penny over the income support weekly amount limit and therefore not qualify. I realise that there must be cut-off points. However, I would much rather that they were tapered.
It is extremely important that families with children should have their income sustained, as my amendment requires, because they are extremely vulnerable at a time when someone is incapable of work. It affects the family as a whole, including the children whose school work may be affected by the worry. The amendment will help to alleviate that problem. It will help those children to go on to be properly qualified and to generate income for the country later. I do not accept the arguments of my noble friend. I must therefore ask the opinion of the House.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Desai, L.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eatwell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ennals, L.

Attlee, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fitt, L.

Bancroft, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bath, M.

Geraint, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Beloff, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Brimelow, L.

Gregson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Grey, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Haskel, L.

Chatteris of Amisfield, L.

Healey, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hooson, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Howell, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Hughes, L.

Cox, B.

Hunt, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

David, B.

Jacques, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

1462

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Judd, L.

Rea, L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rix, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rochester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Russell, E.

Listowel, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Soper, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stedman, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar, C.

Strabolgi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Thurso, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milverton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wharton, B.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wise, L.

Peston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Granard, E.

Annaly, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Haig, E.

Astor, V.

Harrowby, E.

Balfour, E.

Haslam, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Blake, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Borthwick, L.

Holderness, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kenyon, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kimball, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Burnham, L.

Knollys, V.

Carnock, L.

Knutsford, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marsh, L.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B,

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegall, M.

Moyne, L.

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Peel, E.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

1463

Pike, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Prentice, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pym, L,

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

[Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reay, L.

Swansea, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Romney, E.

Tollemache, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

St Davids, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strange, B.

Wynford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 3 [Incapacity benefit: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 19, leave out (", in such cases as may be prescribed,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 32. These three amendments are of a technical nature and deal with three regulation-making powers. These powers allow modification of what constitutes a spell or period of incapacity for work.
Generally a spell or period of incapacity would arise only where a person has four or more consecutive days of incapacity for work. These three powers allow a period of two or more days, whether consecutive or not, within a period of seven consecutive days to form a spell or period of incapacity for work. Regulations made under these powers cater for people who require regular treatment for their condition but are absent from work for only two or three days each time; for example, someone undergoing renal dialysis. The superfluous wording being removed is,
"in such cases as may be prescribed".
This wording was intended to allow the regulations to be focused specifically on the relevant group of people.
However, if I may refer noble Lords to another part of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992., Section 175(3) states that,
"any power under this Act to make regulations … may be exercised … in relation to any specified cases or classes of case".
Noble Lords will see therefore that the wording used in each of these powers is unnecessary. With that explanation I hope the House will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert ("or training of such other description as may be prescribed").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 33. As your Lordships may recall from our discussions during the Committee stage of the Bill, concern was expressed over the scope of the—
Lord Carter: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is grouped with Amendment No. 32, not Amendment No. 33.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. As I said, noble Lords may recall from our discussions during the Committee stage that concern was expressed over the scope of the long training linking rule introduced as part of the incapacity benefit structure. I said then that we were looking at this issue again and undertook to try to respond by Report stage on the outcome. I can now inform noble Lords that we have completed our deliberations and I am pleased to be bringing forward these four amendments which give effect to the changes we propose.
As noble Lords may already be aware, this training linking rule is intended to provide an incentive for people receiving incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance to try to make a return to work. The training linking rule provides the safeguard that if their attempt fails because of their incapacity they can return to the same benefit they were previously receiving within two years. Additionally, it protects the position of those people who are assessed as callable of work and begin, or are already undertaking, a training course. if their condition deteriorates again within two years, these people could also return to their previous benefit.
To set these amendments in context I should perhaps explain what will happen when a person receiving incapacity benefit undertakes a course of training. As with the existing incapacity benefits, if attendance on a training course attracts a training allowance, payment of incapacity benefit will cease. However. where a person undertakes a course of training and a training allowance is not payable, his incapacity benefit will remain in payment so long as he continues to satisfy the test of incapacity for work. If at any stage during the person's course of training he was assessed as no longer satisfying the test of incapacity, as one would reasonably expect, his benefit would cease. These rules will, as now, apply equally to severe disablement allowance.
Anyone undertaking a non-employment department course who continues to be incapable of work will have no need for the linking rule—their benefit will continue in payment. However, the amendments I am bringing forward will benefit those people who on undertaking a course of training fail the test of incapacity and those who begin a training course on leaving benefit. The amendments will ensure that where training for work is specified in the Bill it will include,
"training of such other description as may be prescribed".
This will apply to the long linking rule on both incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. The other two amendments relate to incapacity benefit. The final amendment relates to severe disablement allowance. The broader definition will also apply to the new qualifying benefit rule on disability working allowance. This is the rule which allows a person to undertake a period of training between leaving his qualifying benefit and making his claim to disability working allowance.

1465
We feel it is essential to use regulations for this provision. I am sure noble Lords will agree that training provision has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and will no doubt continue to do so in the future. It is important therefore that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to allow us to keep it up to date when any relevant new initiatives arise.
We have not as yet finalised the drafting of regulations that are to be made under these powers but I can tell the House what we intend that they should cover. Regulations will specify both additional Employment Department programmes and the types of non-government training courses that should be covered. We expect three Employment Department programmes to be included: Employment Rehabilitation; Community Action; and North Norfolk Action—similar to Community Action. With non-government training we are intending to include full-time courses the sole or main purpose of which is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills (full-time being defined as 16 hours or more). The issue of funding through the European Social Fund was raised during Committee. I can assure the House that where the sole or main purpose of the course funded by the European Social Fund is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills these courses would be covered.
I hope that these changes will be welcomed. I apologise for the rather complicated explanation of them but I thought it important that your Lordships should understand the changes that we have made. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it was I who moved the amendment at the Committee stage concerning the European Social Fund. At that time it looked as though training courses which were being financed by the fund would not be eligible. I was glad to hear what my noble friend has just said. It would be churlish of me not to say thank you, having made that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 6, line 34, at end insert (", and
(d) section 30B(4A) (construction of references to
short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate),").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we debated these amendments with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to provide for the transition to incapacity benefit]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations under this section may provide, in relation to transitional cases where the rate of incapacity benefit falls to be calculated by reference to the rate of dependency allowance paid or payable before commencement, that any old saving provisions shall have effect subject to the regulations or shall cease to have effect in accordance with the regulations.
For the purposes of this subsection—

"dependency allowance" means an allowance of the kind provided for in Part IV of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and

1466

"old saving provisions" means provisions of any description, including administrative provisions, in connection with a previous change affecting entitlement to or the amount of dependency allowances, preserving a person's position in any respect.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment will provide for regulations to be made which will enable existing forms of transitional protection for dependency increases of invalidity benefit to be rationalised from April 1995. The objective is to align these old provisions with new forms of protection that we intend to create at the inception of incapacity benefit. I should say at the outset that acceptance of this amendment will not lead to cash losses for those whose circumstances remain unchanged.
During the 1970s and 1980s the structure of dependency increases changed in a number of ways. I need not detain your Lordships with a detailed account of those changes; suffice to say that one of the results was the creation of six separate forms of transitional protection. Although the numbers of beneficiaries involved are very small, these forms of protection do not operate on a uniform basis, and it seems sensible, therefore, to use the opportunity presented by incapacity benefit to place them on the same footing.
The key difference between these forms of protection is that some operate on the basis of an ongoing entitlement to a dependency increase but others are linked to the continuation of payment. One might expect these terms to be synonymous, but the courts have made it clear that there is an important difference. Payment of a dependency increase may cease for a variety of reasons, but where cessation is due to receipt of earnings in excess of a prescribed limit or a personal benefit, entitlement to the increase can continue. The result is that for some beneficiaries protection can be reactivated despite the fact that payment of the increase may have ceased many years before. We think this somewhat bizarre effect is difficult to defend.
By contrast, in the case of the other forms of protection that would be affected by this amendment, protection is lost if payment of the increase ceases for just one day. This can produce harsh effects. While payment of a Christmas bonus or even a few hours' overtime would ordinarily lead to just a brief pause in payment of the increase, in these cases it can lead to permanent cessation of protection.
We propose that all these existing forms of protection will continue on the basis of new rules. These rules were initially developed with the transition to incapacity benefit in mind, but we think it entirely logical to apply them to these old forms of protection too. The new rules will mean more favourable treatment for some beneficiaries and less advantageous treatment of others when compared with the current arrangements. However, no one will experience any losses at the point of change, and since the normal linking rules of eight weeks or two years for disability working allowance or training for work cases will apply, the disadvantage will be no more than theoretical in the vast majority of cases.
Finally, I should mention a further proposed change. One existing form of transitional protection relates to the introduction in 1985 of the current earnings rule for adult dependency increases of invalidity benefit. The

1467
current rule operates on an all-or-nothing basis, with payment ceasing when earnings exceed a prescribed limit. By contrast, the old rule provides for tapered withdrawal of the increase. So when the dependency increase itself is uprated each year the amount of earnings necessary to extinguish it also rises. We think this is illogical because rather than merely preserving the position of those affected by the change back in 1985, this form of protection has actually increased in generosity over time and will continue to do so at each subsequent uprating. We therefore propose that an overriding limit is placed on this form of protection which equates to the point at which protection currently ceases. When earnings exceed this limit for more than eight weeks, protection will be lost. This will preserve the existing advantage conferred by this form of protection but will not add further to it.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that these proposals are both logical and reasonable and will feel able to support my amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Test of incapacity for work]:
Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 2, at end insert:
("Code of Practice
171ZA—(1) Before laying before either House of Parliament a draft instrument containing the first of the regulations to be made under sections 171 A to 171 G below, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft Code of Practice setting out how he intends to proceed with the matters covered by the regulations to be made under each of those provisions.
(2) The draft Code of Practice laid under subsection (1) above shall, in particular, set out how the Secretary of State intends, in preparing any of the medical tests to be established by the provisions listed in subsection (1) above, to take account of—

(a) non-medical factors including an applicant's age, education, experience and training;

(b) the applicant's general state of physical and mental health and the intermittent nature of illness;

(c) personal factors, including the likelihood of an applicant obtaining work, his capacity to deal with pain and stress, and his capacity to work more than 16 hours per week; and

(d) the subjective nature of mental illness.

(3) Before laying the draft Code of Practice under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of the medical profession and of groups representing disabled people, and such other persons as seem to him to be appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not proceed to lay any regulations under any of the provisions listed in subsection (1) above until—

(a) forty days on which both Houses have sat have passed since the laying of the draft Code of Practice under subsection (1) above, and

(b) the draft Code of Practice has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a subject which we did not discuss in Committee. It is an attempt to deal with a problem which we certainly discussed at some length in Committee, in that this Bill, as we know, gives the Government the power to introduce by regulation matters to deal with the medical test. But the House will of course have no chance to discuss the thinking behind the regulations. The assessment will not be completed until August, I believe, and the regulations will be brought in. As we know, they cannot be amended; they can either be accepted or rejected. When the Minister replies I hope that we do not get the argument that this
1468
House can always reject the amendment. That is not the point. We want to have the chance to discuss these very detailed matters to do with the extremely important medical test. I am sure that everyone will be aware of the anxiety which there is about the way in which the test will be implemented.
The effect of the amendment is that no regulations to do with any of the test can be laid, even in draft, until consultation has taken place—I emphasise that—and a draft code of practice has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament. I shall go through the amendment, but not at length. It contains all the points which we wish to be considered—all the factors which have to be taken into account, including the non-medical factors, the applicant's general state of physical and mental health and the intermittent nature of illness—all subjects which we discussed in Committee.
This is an attempt to get round the rigidity of the approach by regulation and to introduce flexibility of approach by code of practice. As I have said, we all know the problem with regulations: they cannot be amended and the only power we have is to reject them. It seems to me that this is the proper way to deal with this case. I hope that the 'Government will accept the strength of the argument.
We all want to see, as the Government do, the test working properly. We had the very useful presentation by the medical advisers which was made to a number of us before we came to Committee stage. From that presentation we can all agree just how complicated the matter will be. We believe it right that Parliament should have the chance to discuss the way in which the test will be conducted and the rationale behind it, with the chance, if necessary, to amend the code of practice.
Perhaps I may quote from a very helpful letter which the Minister sent me. It was addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I was kindly sent a copy. his about carers and incapacity benefit. In fact, it can be adapted to anyone who has to go through the test. The letter reads:
"Because the test is focused towards work, the assessment will take into account the fact that a person capable of work must be able to repeat activities over a period of time … If pain, fatigue or stress accompany or are consequent on a particular activity, then the person is effectively incapable of performing the activity. We shall continue to develop the test on this basis, and the training and guidance to BAMS doctors will make clear that pain, fatigue and stress, and conditions subject to variation, fluctuation, remission and exacerbation of their symptoms and signs are taken fully into account in assessing capacity".
I have quoted that letter to show the number of factors which will have to introduced and covered by these regulations. Therefore it is extremely important that we have the chance, as I say, through the code of practice approach to discuss these matters in some detail, if necessary, to amend them and to require the approval of both Houses if these important medical tests are to be accepted with a proper code of practice.
The amendment also deals with an important point which is set out in subsection (3):
"Before laying the draft Code of Practice under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of the medical profession and of groups representing disabled people, and such other persons as seem to him to be appropriate".
That gives the Government wide discretion, but when the code of practice comes back to both Houses, it will

1469
enable Parliament to be told what is the nature of the consultation which has taken place and the representations which have been received. That is much more flexible than the approach through regulations.
I believe that a code of practice is a very useful device in the circumstances of this Bill when there will be a gap between the Bill, if it receives Royal Assent, and the ending of the assessment period. Then we shall see the regulations with no chance of amending them.
The amendment has been widely drafted. I am prepared to accept that the Government may wish to take it away and redraft it. It is the principle which we wish to establish at this stage of the Bill. I shall be extremely interested to hear whether the Minister feels that this is a useful way to get round a problem which the Government recognise as much as we do. I hope that this amendment is helpful in that sense. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on an ingenious and extremely helpful amendment. I believe that it is no secret that, for me, the medical test as it stands at present is entirely unacceptable. I believe that any chance of it sorting the sheep from the goats is very remote indeed. In fact, the connection between not passing the test and unfitness for work will be purely coincidental.
I am not dividing the House against Clause 5 because we have been told, to my great relief, that the test in its present form is not final. It would be contrary to the spirit of this House to try to vote down the power while, I hope, attempts are still being made to reach a consensus. But at some stage the House must have the power to say that this is not acceptable.
When we were in Committee the Minister tried to argue that the House should not concern itself with the details of the test. The Minister said exactly that. I do not have the reference to hand, but I shall write to the Minister with it if he likes.
It has been suggested that we should leave the details of the test to the experts. But the alleged panel of experts is not by any means entirely happy with what is going on. In fact some of them have written to us to say that the full panel of 80 has not met on any occasion and that many of them have exactly the same complaints as we have. In fact they are not satisfied with it either.
I was very grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. But I was very disappointed to hear him once again repeating the formula that age is not a disability. I thought that we had made it clear that we were not alleging that it was. But it does make a difference to what sort of work you are suited for. If that is not taken into account, the test will not be testing suitability for work. It will not be testing suitability for any work which, if fit, you could have done.
I have received a letter from the Chair of the North London M.E. Network which makes a number of those points extremely well. Ms. Muller points out that,
"M.E., like M.S. and other illnesses is a fluctuating condition".
1470
Although I know that the Minister thinks that it is going to be possible for Benefits Agency medical service doctors with the aid of one letter from a claimant's GP to assess a fluctuating condition, it is something about which I have a good many doubts. Ms. Muller also points out, as we have been saying from the beginning, that the test is,
"inappropriate for assessing illness, as it is a functional assessment of disability".
It seems inherent in the choice of a functional impairment test to assess illness and disability together. I think that that decision was fundamentally misguided. In addition, it seems entirely misguided to attempt to assess mental health by asking people to fill in a form.
We have in this allegedly "objective" test—of course, it is no such thing—a sickness which is extremely widespread throughout government. I should like to quote from a document which reached me this afternoon. The report in question states:
"The major concerns … are over the policy of making judgements on … documentation; on the criteria in use, … and on the usefulness of the ensuing reports".
That sounds familiar. It comes from a report carried out for the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and for Wales on the assessment of university teaching. It shows the same sickness.
If the tests are to be in any way acceptable, we must increase the medical input and decrease the allegedly objective element. How then can this House satisfy itself, before allowing the tests to be passed into law, that they are all right? We cannot do it now because the work is not finished. There are many procedural devices that we can use, but if we are to do it, we need a procedure under which all parties in this House will be happy to go through the Lobby. If we do not have that, we shall have what we have had already with the Child Support Act: this House vilified outside because it has agreed to something which, with proper scrutiny, it should never have accepted. That will not do us any good any more than it will do the country any good. If the amendment will allow us to reach a vote on the test, it will also encourage a process of consultation. I do not think that it is right that a test of medical unfitness should be acceptable to only one side of the House. If we want to assess medical fitness, we should be looking for something which is, at least in a rudimentary way, acceptable to people of all political persuasions, and that is something that we do not have here.
I should like to point out to the Minister one danger of the test which I do not think that he has spotted but which may concern him more than many of the dangers that we have pointed out. We have been anxious throughout that people will be pronounced fit for work who are not, but there is another danger. The test concentrates on a functional limitation. It concentrates on all work rather than work that the person could have done if fit. That means that because of one physical disability, such as in my case the inability to touch my toes, I might be pronounced incapable of all work when I believe that not to be the case.
If enough allowance is given to one functional limitation which would prevent a person from doing the job for which that functional ability is essential, a lot of other people who simply do not need that function to do

1471
their work will be pronounced unfit for work, taken out of work and paid benefit at the taxpayers' expense when it is entirely unnecessary. So much for any idea that the test is objective.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, despite my quailing voice, I should like to support the amendment wholeheartedly. I participated last night in a very good debate approving the code of practice for children with special educational needs. That draft was subject to very wide consultation and was considerably improved and changed. That was the first time that I had taken part in such an exercise and I was very impressed by the whole process. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has come up with an excellent solution and I hope that the Minister will either accept it or come back with a draft code of his own.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not detain the House, but I wish to state that I am fully in support of the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, has just said, if the Government cannot accept the wording, perhaps they will give an undertaking to come back on Third Reading with another amendment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When I spoke on Second Reading I spoke specifically of people who suffer intermittent symptoms with their illness. I know those effects only too well. I am worried that the Government appear to be relying on a note from a GP as well as the questionnaire which has to be filled in. It was three years before my GP realised what I was suffering from. He could very well have said in the intervening period that I was suffering from imagination and might not have been supportive. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could look again at the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, many of us consider that the nature of the medical test proposed is crucial to the purpose and effect of the Bill. The Government have been engaged in a very wide-ranging consultation process involving everyone they felt had views or a right to comment. That is perfectly right and I am glad that they have done so, but unless there has been a change, it means that the particulars of the medical test will not be known before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. That is my understanding. I should have preferred the timing to have been the other way round and the medical test to have been worked out before the Bill was introduced. However, I know all the difficulties with legislation and that the Bill is needed in general.
The proposal in the amendment seems a novel one. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated, the amendment has appeared on the Marshalled List only today. The noble Lord said that it is a way of trying to probe the Government's thinking and how they will deal with this dilemma—and it is a dilemma. When the Bill finally leaves Parliament, there will still be a great questionmark over the nature of the medical test. I hope that the Government will take that point on board. I shall be interested to hear their response to the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too would like to support the amendment. It is well known in the field of disability that medical students do not receive any training at all on some disabilities and very little on others, yet the field of disability is wide and varied. I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously because a GP's note might not mean very much. As a paraplegic, I have sometimes been examined by doctors who have said, "I have never seen a paraplegic before". I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that your Lordships debate and consider the regulations relating to the medical test. I hope that you will forgive me if I do not go into the details of the test now. It is not that I do not want to, but we shall consider later on amendments concerned with the details of the medical test. It is better that we deal with those points then and that I deal now with the regulations and their scrutiny by the House.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that I either said or implied that your Lordships should not concern yourselves with the details of the test. I did not intend to give that impression. I hope that I did not use those words. What I said in Committee, and I shall repeat it, is that it is important that your Lordships consider the test and the regulations. The regulations will come before your Lordships as affirmative resolutions, and you will have the opportunity to debate them.
This amendment attempts to go further than that. It introduces other subjects, which I am not sure is what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intended. It may help if I explain. We have already promised that we intend to publish a report in August this year which will summarise the results of the consultation exercise, the work of the expert panel and the evaluation exercise, all of which we have undertaken on the development of the all-work test. The report will also set out the proposed test and details of the proposed procedures for the administration and adjudication of the new benefit It will be freely available, and we shall seek views on the details of the new test and the procedures. We intend to consult disability organisations on the proposals and on the guidance. We shall take account of any comments that we receive in deciding the final detail of the test that will be set out in the regulations and the proposed procedures.
Like other social security benefits, it will be necessary to draw up detailed procedures for all aspects of the administration and adjudication of incapacity benefit. That will include guidance to our staff in Benefits Agency offices; for example, on the handling of claims and answering inquiries about the benefit. The chief adjudication officer will issue guidance to adjudication officers. The department will issue guidance to GPs about their role in the new benefit. In addition to any necessary training, BAMS doctors will be given written guidance on the operation of the all-work test.
There will be a great deal of written material available on the application of the new benefit. All that

1473
guidance will be available publicly so that everyone with an interest will be able to see in detail how the benefit will be administered.
Perhaps I may deal with matters that the amendment seeks to include in the draft code of practice. I have already explained how the own-occupation and the all-work test of incapacity will operate. I do not propose to go through those details again. Different criteria apply to the different tests. The own-occupation test obviously assesses a person's incapacity against his ability to do his own job. When considering whether a person should refrain from doing his own job, his own doctor will take account of relevant factors such as the person's general state of physical and mental health, his disabilities and his capacity to cope with pain and stress.
The all-work test will take account of medical factors only, but the amendment seeks to take account of non-medical factors, in effect, by the back-door. That is the debate we shall be having when we come to the next amendment. We shall not need to consider how to take account of non-medical factors such as age, education, experience, training or the likelihood of the person obtaining work. The test will take full account of the person's state of physical and mental health, the intermittent nature of certain medical conditions and the variability of their effects and factors such as pain, stress and fatigue. In designing the all-work test we are using the definition of—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that fit people are not always capable of all work?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I accept that there are people who might be fit but find that when they come to do a job they can do it for only a day and then have to have a rest for a week afterwards or whatever it may be. In that sense, the noble Earl is right. When we come to discuss the amendments on the medical test, we shall explain in more detail how such issues are affected.
In designing the 'all-work test, we are using a definition of work of more than 16 hours a week. That is in guidance that we have issued to the expert panel which is helping us with the design of the test.
Many of the matters covered by the proposed draft code of practice will feature in the application of the new test that we are designing. The amendment seeks also to introduce into the all-work test by, in effect, the back-door, other factors that we debated in Committee when we explained why they are not acceptable. Both Houses can debate the regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that they should be debated, but the amendment goes much further than that. It does not say just that there should be a debate in your Lordships' House, which we are having anyway. It seeks to include in the medical test things such as non-medical factors that we have already discussed and would be at variance with the medical test itself. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that we shall consult widely; that everything will be made public; and that you will be able to debate the regulations when they come before the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is a Citizen's Charter and a Patient's Charter. The more I listen to the Government, the more I think that there should be a Parliamentarian's Charter. It seems that everyone is to be allowed to have their say on this and to affect the code of practice except those in Parliament. Of course we can debate regulations, but the Minister—I think deliberately—completely ignored my point that we cannot amend regulations. All we can do is reject them.
If the Minister is saying that the best way to handle the problem is to give Parliament the chance to reject the regulations outright, with all the chaos that that would cause, I think that that is a ridiculous argument. The amendment arose because I was sitting here in Committee listening to the problem of how to deal with the medical test which is subject to a great deal of debate and criticism. We shall have no chance to deal with them except by debating the regulations and then rejecting them. It occurred to me then that the code of practice was a way for the Government to meet those concerns. I was prepared for the Minister to say that he did not like the drafting of the amendment, that it goes too wide, or whatever, but that he accepted the principle and that the Government would come back with their own amendment which accepted this proposal as a way around the problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), gave us an example when she said that only last night there was a debate in the House on the code of practice for special educational needs. So what is the difference? It is a device which is useful in these circumstances. I have done a great many social security Bills. We always hear about all the wide consultations and the fact that reports will be available, but in the end the Government will say what they intend to do and Parliament will not be able to amend the regulations. It can only reject them. That is the weakness of the whole argument.
We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the consultative panel is unhappy about the way the matter is being conducted. The Minister said that we shall have a chance to discuss amendments to the tests. We cannot discuss amendments to the tests. As I have said, we shall not see them until the Bill receives Royal Assent and they are presented to us in regulations as, "Take it or leave it". That is the Government's motto: take it or leave it. We are not going to take it. I intend to ask the House for its opinion.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bath, M.

Airedale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blackstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brimelow, L.

Attlee, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Avebury, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Bancroft, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Barnett, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

1475

Chichester, Bp.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Crook, L.

Mar, C.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Nathan, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Rix, L.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Haig, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Healey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hertford, M.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Thurso, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Walpole, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Judd, L.

Wise, L.

Kennet, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chesham, L.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Arran E.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Astor, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Balfour, E.

Courtown, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Cranborne, V.

Barber, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blake, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Donegall, M.

Brigstocke, B.

Dormer, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Burnham, L.

Elibank, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ferrers, E.

Carnock, L.

Gisborough, L.

1476

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Goschen, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B

Granard, E.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Perry of Southwak, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Haslam, L.

Prentice, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Prior, L.

Henley, L.

Pym, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hindlip, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell. L,

Hives, L.

Rennell, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L

Hood, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hooper, B.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seccombe, B.

Kenyon, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale. L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Stewartby, L.

Knollys, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Knutsford, V.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lucas, L.

[Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Swansea, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Tollemache, L,

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Miller of Hendon, B,

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Morris, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Moyne, L.

Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Wolfson, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wynford, L.

Norrie, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed
5.47 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) A person is not to be treated as incapable of work except in respect of work for which he is suited by education. training or experience.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No, 13 seeks to restore consideration of some non-medical factors of relevance to incapacity and to ensure that these factors appear in primary legislation rather than in regulations. The new so-called "objective medical test" will assess only physical and mental functions, which is a measure of impairment but not of incapacity. The proposed test, which is based on adding up points from a score of functional limitations, is not the same as incapacity. Ability to undertake work is not synonymous with ability to perform a standard set of activities. Other factors are also relevant.
The test currently used in respect of invalidity benefit includes factors such as education and experience, which interact with disablement. A person can be considered incapable of work if, having regard to his age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, there is no work or type of work which

1477
he can reasonably be expected to do. The amendment is designed to ensure that people are considered capable only of work which is realistic, given their disability. The availability of such work is not taken into account and nor are personal factors which have no bearing on incapacity; for instance, domestic commitments.
A person who becomes disabled after a lifetime of manual work, and with no educational qualifications, can be found incapable of work if factors such as educational and employment background are taken into account when looking at the type of work that he could reasonably be expected to do. The Government estimate that the new test will exclude 200,000 people from invalidity benefit. That reference can be found in Commons Hansard of 9th February at col. 369. Therefore, it is likely that, under this new test, disabled people who are nevertheless incapable of work will be regarded as fit for work and will lose benefit.
The amendment does not seek to reintroduce all the factors considered with the present test. It attempts to reinstate consideration of the range of work which someone can reasonably be expected to undertake given factors such as education and training. It is inaccurate to view incapacity for work in stark all-or-nothing terms. Potentially there is a wide gap between "own work" and "all work", which the proposed test ignores. The amendment addresses the Government's aim to develop an objective definition of incapacity for work but with a more realistic approach.
It introduces a formula which provides a realistic and reasonable way to assess the work which someone could be capable of undertaking. Clearly, in order to ascertain what work a person is suited for, consideration must be given to education, training and experience. That approach is taken at present in the private sector.
For the purposes of permanent health insurance, someone can be regarded as incapable of work if there is no work for which a person is suited by training, education or experience. It is a definition which is less severe than "any work" and normally means that a company could establish whether or not a claimant could do a similar job for which he is suited. Thus, it avoids the absurd situation of an executive recovering from a nervous breakdown being considered fit for work as a storekeeper. Indeed, the insurance ombudsman's report for 1993 stated on page 23
"There is no point in expecting a man who has been a labourer all his life to be able to do clerical work … it must be taken as implicit that there is a reasonable chance of the policyholder being acceptable to an employer in that field".
This particular amendment was not tabled in Committee, although a similar amendment was tabled which aimed to reintroduce the concept of reasonableness into the "all work" test. That amendment was debated and withdrawn. In Committee my noble friend Lady Cumberlege stated that that amendment undermined the aim of the new incapacity test, which was intended to move away from the subjectivity of the current system. In particular, she indicated that, despite its objective of reasonable work, the current system often produced unreasonable outcomes.
She said that:
1478
"Currently, the adjudication officer may be asked to give a list of jobs that a claimant could do: this is an unreasonable demand, as an adjudication officer is not an employment rehabilitation adviser".—[Official Report, 21/4/94; col. 325.]
My noble friend went on to suggest that employability and incapacity were becoming blurred and therefore produced unfairness. She went on to state that:
"two people with precisely the same degree of incapacity may be treated differently because one has retrained and the other has not".
The method of specifying alternative jobs, as it is undertaken in the current system, is a reasonable way of assessing whether or not someone can undertake a particular job. It is only by specifying the jobs which the claimant is considered capable of undertaking that the range of activities and abilities relating to that particular job, and therefore someone's ability to do it, can be considered, although in practice there is evidence of peculiar careers advice given by the Benefits Agency. That is more as a result of an incorrect functional emphasis than inappropriate use of job descriptions.
If the Government consider that adjudication officers are at a disadvantage compared with disability employment advisers, there are practical ways in which to address that; namely, through collaboration or retraining of staff of the Benefits Agency or the employment department. Furthermore, a similar method is used in the private sector for deciding claims under permanent health insurance. Indeed, the insurance ombudsman stated that insurers should not repudiate claims on the grounds that the policyholder could undertake some other type of work without specifying what he could do.
In case law, which was referred to by my noble friend in relation to the point at which alternative work should be considered, it was held that someone's incapacity should be assessed by reference to their present work capacity without regard to whether they would become capable of work following training. It is a present rather than a future test. Only when someone has retrained could that capacity be reviewed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased from these Benches to add my name to the amendment which has been so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Therefore, I can be brief.
I have two points to make. It is ironic that, in the work market, when any employer looks at a potential employee, he will look at three factors: education, training and experience. Those are the three attributes mentioned in the amendment. However, the Government wish to move away from that in the "all work" test. We all know why; they are playing the numbers game. The subjectivity of the existing test, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in Committee, has meant that too many people are receiving the present benefit. Therefore, the Government have devised a test to make sure that 200,000 people will be taken off the benefit.
As we discovered in Committee, the problem arises with regard to the definition which the Government are using when they refer to "all work" on the open market. I made the point in Committee and I repeat it now: the market becomes more and more open as jobs become less and less skilled. I gave two extreme examples;

1479
namely, envelope stuffers and Concorde pilots. There is an extremely open market for envelope stuffers but a closed market for Concorde pilots.
The Government's intention is to reduce the number of claimants for this new benefit. By doing that, they are creating an area of increasing injustice to people who are entitled to benefit. The rigidity and weakness of the test, which we have discussed, mean that large numbers of people who are receiving the benefit will be taken off it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister replies, I am sure that he or she—I do not know who is to reply —will say that this amendment attempts once again to introduce non-medical factors. I would say that it brings the test into the real world, because we are not, any of us, merely a collection of medical symptoms. We are people. Our capacity for work involves our ability as people to fit into certain environments and perform certain jobs in those environments.
That cannot possibly be tested except in relation to work for which we should otherwise have been fit. I have referred already to the letter from some of those who have worked on the tests. They said:
"Some of us have been unable to complete the exercises",
that is, working out possible tests—
"and have indicated our reasons why to the department. Those of us who have undertaken the tasks have found that the exercises themselves have reinforced the potential difficulties we perceive as inevitable in the measurement of incapacity such as this. In particular we are concerned about the arbitrariness of scoring according to mechanical functions without reference to other factors such as age or employment history. The concentration on functions to the exclusion of all else is contrary to the whole person approach which so many of us advocate".
If that is the view of those who have actually been working on the compilation of the tests, who is there left to believe in what is coming out as a result? That is a very telling comment.
I imagine that the Government will insist that we are trying to reintroduce labour market factors. We are not. We accept that they should be excluded, and there is no question about that; but always in the Government's arguments we find an undistributed middle. They take an alleged alternative to what we are saying and say, "If not one, then the other". In the Official Report of the Committee stage, that phrase appeared as an "undistributed niggle". I did not correct it because I decided that it represented my meaning rather better than what I had originally intended to say. What we have here from the Government is a series of undistributed niggles.
I have with me a copy of the Minister's letter to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which he has very kindly copied to me. In it the Minister says that he is trying to work on a collection of 100 occupations. One may be unfit for all of those 100 occupations, but not for one that one can do. Alternatively, as in the case of Professor Stephen Hawking who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in Committee, one might be unfit for the 100 occupations and yet, nevertheless, one might find work for which one is fit, and fit with some distinction. That illustrates the extent to which one cannot discuss fitness for work independent of the person and the skills involved. The
1480
attempt to exclude anything but functional limitations works severely against illness. What we have here is a test for disability; it is not a test for illness. Disability is not absolutely synonymous with unfitness for work, as anyone who has suffered from ME or glandular fever knows perfectly well.
In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the Minister said:
"The new medical test is designed to assess a person's capacity to perform the activities involved in work".
I wonder what the Minister meant by that remark. What exactly are,
"the activities involved in work"?
I do not have the first idea as to what they can be. Indeed, I would have to be told what work before I could even begin to answer that question. Between the own-occupation test and the all-work test there is an undistributed middle and it is to that undistributed middle that I am constantly trying to bring the Government back: fitness for work that one would otherwise have been capable of doing. That is what we need. I cannot see that anything else is really serving any useful function.
On the question of age, the Minister said:
"We do not wish to condone the actions of any employers who make the age of a job applicant the critical factor in deciding whether to employ him".
If the Minister means what he says, he is promising legislation. Is that the case?
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the amendment seeks to define the factors to be considered both in the own-occupation test and the all-work test and to prescribe them on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, the amendment surfaced in a slightly different form in our debates in Committee. However, as I said then, the amendment is contrary to the Government's intention.
The own-occupation test will be a factual test of whether or not a person is well enough to do his own job, and can take into account both medical and non-medical factors. The own-occupation test of incapacity which will apply to most people for the first 28 weeks of sickness will be a test similar to that which applies under the current system. It will assess a person's capacity to do his normal job. Training, education and work experience are unlikely to be important factors at this stage, as the person will evidently be sufficiently experienced, educated and trained to perform his own job.
The primary evidence for incapacity during the first 28 weeks will be provided by the claimant's own doctor. Like any other doctor, he will exercise his independent clinical judgment in deciding whether or not the person concerned should refrain from his own occupation. It will be the GP who will advise a claimant to refrain from doing his job, and that advice will be the evidence on which the adjudication officer bases his decision. As the test is whether a person is fit enough to do his own job—that is, the job he was doing up to 21 weeks

1481
previously—experience, training and education are simply not significant. I hope that noble Lords will accept that point.
The application of the amendment to the all-work test raises different issues. The all-work test does not take into account factors like training, employment history or educational qualifications. We firmly believe that that is right. Of course, there are people who, through their medical condition, become unable to do their own job. Such people will be entitled to be measured against the own-occupation test of incapacity for the first 28 weeks. However, we do not think it is right that they should continue to receive incapacity benefit for evermore simply because they are physically incapable of performing one particular job. That is why the all-work test will apply.
Perhaps I may interject a comment here. I know that some noble Lords seem to feel that, in the current situation, once people receive benefit they continue to do so. However, I am sure that noble Lords will realise that will change once people who have previously been receiving benefit are found to be capable of work under the current system. The new all-work test will not be the first time that people have been found to be fit and taken off benefit. In the year ending September 1993 over 920,000 cases were referred to the medical service of the Benefits Agency for a second opinion on incapacity, and over 123,000 of those people were either found capable of work or the person terminated his claim before he was examined. I believe that under the current arrangements that shows a significant number of people are found capable of work.
The all-work test will be applied after six months. We intend incapacity benefit to go to people who are sick and disabled, not to people who cannot find a job because they are untrained, insufficiently educated, unskilled, or inexperienced. It is not a benefit awarded on grounds of employability. The new medical test is designed to assess a person's capacity to perform the activities involved in work, not his likelihood of employment. Our development work on the test—for example, in the 100 jobs exercise—is ensuring that the activities in the all-work test are related to the job requirements of nearly three-quarters of occupations in the UK economy.
Education is not relevant to an assessment of incapacity. Many people complete their formal education before they reach a level that they are truly capable of attaining. Many are not offered the opportunity to go as far in their education as they might like. They may go back in later life to complete their formal education. It would be wrong to assume that incapacity benefit claimants are not capable of further education. Quite often, formal education is less of a requirement than aptitude and potential. Again, it would be wrong to enshrine in legislation a system which is at odds with what does and should happen in reality.
We do not think it is right that people should continue to receive incapacity benefit because they are trained only for one job and no other. Unemployed people are expected to consider all work after a certain period. If a person cannot find work because he lacks training,
1482
assistance is offered by the employment department. A range of options exists to help with training and rehabilitation.
People can retrain. If I may say so, it is a little arrogant to suggest that certain categories of people—for example, those who have previously done manual jobs—cannot retrain. In fact, we know that they can do so. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. I give way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon, but can she tell us when we suggested that those people could not retrain for work for which they would otherwise have been fit?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that I have been trying to draw the distinction between the provision and the amendment which seeks to include other factors that we feel are irrelevant to a person's ability to do a job because of his sickness or his disability. That is what I am trying to establish.
In a recent survey of employment training we were able to show that 56 per cent. of trainees were training to do a new type of work; and we all know that in the north Nottinghamshire area alone, around 600 people who worked in coal mines or related industries have undergone or are undergoing retraining. As with training, it is completely fair that a person who cannot find work because he has experience of only one job and is now medically incapable of doing that job should be tested for his medical capacity to perform a range of jobs. Why should someone be expected to restrict his employment to only one type of work? A person who has no medical incapacity but whose job in, for example, a fading industry ceases to exist must consider a range of jobs. In the first case, the person cannot perform his old job because of a particular health problem; in the second, because the job no longer exists. It is only fair that both people should equally be expected to consider themselves against other work. Of course, if the person in the first case is not fit to do other work, he will receive incapacity benefit. But I do not see how anyone can argue that he should not even have his medical capacity to do other work measured.
This amendment seeks to reintroduce into the all work test the element of subjectivity that was such a problem in the old system. We are trying to get away from the subjective "supposedly-reasonable job" approach, with its lists of appropriate jobs, sometimes —as your Lordships illustrated on Second Reading—bizarre. We know there are problems consequent on the structure of the current system; many of the problems have been raised by noble Lords opposite. Current case law on "reasonable work" requires adjudication officers to take account of all sorts of factors including the non-specific "other social factors". These are just not relevant to incapacity. With this test we are aiming at a fairer and more objective test of incapacity. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should say, with the leave of the House, that

1483
I believe she quoted some figures from the existing system in the year to September 1993. I believe she said that something like 900,000 people are referred back —presumably by benefit officers—and of these eight out of nine are still found to be unfit for work. I think she said that 120,000 were found to be fit for work. Is this the example that she gives of the subjectivity of the present system—not doing the job that the Government want the test to do, which is to take people off benefit?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. It was really to try to redress the view I think your Lordships have that the present system is working well and that people, once they are on sickness benefits, remain on those benefits. But what I am trying to point out is that they are tested and that many of them actually do go back to work.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sorry to insist, but I believe the noble Baroness said that eight out of nine are found to be unfit for work.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was only trying to make the point that once a person is on a benefit they do not necessarily always stay on that benefit; that there are tests and some of them go back to work.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand that the argument on this side of the House is that the objectivity which is being claimed here is on a level such that it is not a human attribute?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think, if I may say, that that is perhaps rather an unfair comment. We are seeking very carefully to produce a test that is objective. Your Lordships, in this amendment, are trying to make it much more subjective by introducing factors other than the person's present condition in terms of disability or health. I believe that training, education and experience bring in a whole range of subjectivity which we are seeking to exclude, bearing in mind that there are elements within our social security system which will take care of those people.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given a long and detailed response. However, I am not sure that I agree with it. My amendment is not seeking to say that people are incapacitated if they are not capable of one particular job or a range of jobs. Nor does it say that people who will receive incapacity benefit are incapable of further education or retraining. My noble friend brought out the case of miners who have been retrained after their colliery closed down. That is totally irrelevant because they are not disabled. They are not incapable. They are fit. There are lots of different kinds of jobs they can get. This amendment deals with people who are already physically or mentally incapacitated and then asks that other aspects that affect them personally should be taken into account. I understand that at present those found incapable of work constitute only two out of 10 claimants. That is not a great number. Why throw the baby out with the bath water because that is what the Government are trying to do? I am sorry, but I am not satisfied with my noble friend's response. I feel that I must ask the opinion of the House.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

Judd, L.

Bancroft, L.

Kagan, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bath, M.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brimelow, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar, C.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cornwallis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Mellish, L.

Crook, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Richard, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rix, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Harrowby, E.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hertford, M.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollick, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howell, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Hughes, L.

[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Annaly, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Arran, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chesham, L.

Astor, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Balfour, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Barber, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blake, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Burnham, L.

Cross, V.

1485

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elibank, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Prentice, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Haig, E.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Haslam, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Slim, V.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hindlip, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hives, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hood, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hooper, B.

[Teller.]

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kenyon, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tollemache, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mancroft, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative to accordingly.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert:
("() A person shall be treated as incapable of work by reference to the point at which his ability to undertake work-related activity is substantially reduced, not the point where work becomes impossible.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 has two aims. The first is to place a definition of the nature of incapacity on the face of the Bill. The paucity of detail about the proposed test of incapacity within the Bill itself and the leaving of the details of the new test of incapacity to regulations not yet drafted was debated at length during the Committee stage. However, with no definition on the face of the Bill it is impossible to have an adequate debate on incapacity for work.
The second aim of the amendment is to use a definition of incapacity which has been put to the expert panel considering the new tests. I am told that the experts are attempting to score and rate functional limitations. That definition was revealed to selected Members of your Lordships' House at a presentation on
1486
the test three weeks ago. It has been incorporated in guidance sent to panel members with each exercise for scoring functional limitations.
In that guidance panel members are expected to set a threshold of incapacity by reference to the point at which a person's ability to perform work-related activities is substantially reduced, not the point where work becomes impossible. That concept of incapacity is designed to assist the Department of Social Security to define a threshold above which a person should be regarded as incapable of work for the purpose of assessing benefit entitlement. It is important because it means that someone can be entitled to benefit without being totally immobile.
I understand from the Disability Alliance, which has some members on the panel, that the panel itself has not met in its entirety. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when replying, will say how the panel is working and whether it will be meeting in its entirety so that proper discussion between all members can take place. I also understand that a number of the panel members are not in favour of a functional test.
The concept of substantial reduction in work capacity is important recognition that incapacity for work is not absolute but a continuum. If this definition of incapacity is being used by the panel, there seems no reason why it should not appear on the face of the Bill itself.
At Committee stage the matter was debated as part of a longer amendment, which was withdrawn. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege when replying on 21st April stated that the relevant part of the amendment was unnecessary. She went on to say:
"The principle behind the proposal is one on which we already operate. The thresholds in each category of functional limitation and the combinations of those limitations will be set at the point at which a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced… The development of the new medical test therefore is proceeding exactly along the lines suggested by this House. This part of the amendment is unnecessary because what it proposes is exactly what we intend to do'"—[Official Report, 21/4/94; cols. 304–5.]
However, as the amendment accords with the Government's intentions, there is no reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill. It is important to include pointers for the interpretation of incapacity in practice. In recent months there have been numerous examples reported by the citizens advice bureaux and welfare rights advisers of Benefits Agency staff taking an over-zealous approach to incapacity where claimants have had their benefit withdrawn only for it to be reinstated on appeal.
Placing such a definition in the Bill would emphasise to staff that incapacity for work can be established with reduced capacity, not total immobility. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. It is an important point. On moving the amendment so ably, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, at Committee stage. I believe that this passage should be added to the quotation. The noble Baroness stated:
"It may reassure the Committee if I read a passage from the instructions on setting thresholds which we sent to the panel which is working on the medical assessment".

1487
I thought it was a little odd to send instructions to an advisory panel. The instructions are as follows:
"'We want to define a threshold at which a person should be regarded as incapable of work for the purpose of deciding benefit entitlement. This means we are interested in the point on the scale of increasing severity of disability at which a person should not be expected to work, not the point where work becomes impossible"'.—[Official Report, 21/4/94; cols. 304–305.]
Those words are included in the amendment. I cannot understand why the Government should resist an amendment which places on the face of the Bill a definition of the extent of incapacity which is the definition to which they already work. At Committee stage and earlier today we discussed the reluctance of the Government to allow Parliament to put on the face of the Bill words which help to clarify important definitions. The amendment includes the definition which is being used. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the Bill were to contain those words, it would go too far. If such words were on the face of the Bill, they would indicate that where there is a reduction but not an elimination of capacity to work then benefit will be payable. The difficulty is that if one takes a man or woman of considerable ability one can quite substantially reduce his or her working capacity and yet leave him or her with considerable capacity for earning a living. That seems to be covered exactly by the amendment. I believe it to be a great mistake either to put the provision into the Bill or to put its equivalent into regulations.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may respond. I quoted from the instructions which the Government have given to the medical panel. If those are the instructions to which the Government are working, would it not help to define "incapacity" in the Government's own words on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this amendment specifies that incapacity should be interpreted as the substantial reduction of ability to perform work. I hope I can satisfy your Lordships by saying that this is exactly what we intend the medical test to do. The amendment seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that a person shall be treated as incapable of work where his ability to perform work-related activities is substantially reduced, not where work becomes impossible. The test will do precisely this. The principle behind this proposal is one on which we are already operating: the thresholds in each category of functional limitation, and the combinations of those limitations, will be set at the point at which a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced.
We are developing the new all work incapacity test on this basis, and have instructed the assessment panel accordingly. It is our panel. If I may say so, I think that it is quite fair that we should instruct it. The instructions on setting thresholds which we sent to the panel reveal our intention. As has already been said, they state:
"'We want to define a threshold at which a person should be regarded as incapable of work for the purpose of deciding benefit entitlement. This means we are interested in the point on the scale of increasing severity of disability at which a person should not be expected to work, not the point where work becomes impossible'".
1488
This amendment was raised in a similar form in Committee, and our discussions were helpful and wide-ranging. The test, as we have been developing it, incorporates the definitions of work and incapacity raised in this amendment and on which I shall expand. However, we consider that it is inappropriate to place the structure of the test on the face of the Bill: the test is simply too detailed and, more importantly, still open to development through the consultation exercise. To put only some elements of the test into primary legislation would have dangers, and could prevent the implementation of changes to the test, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
As noble Lords are aware, we have convened the special panel of occupational health specialists, rehabilitation experts and physicians. A question has been asked as to their total agreement on every issue. Clearly when one has 80 experts together there is room for some differences. The panel is considering the impact of the functional limitations in our disability scales against each of the hundred jobs. The results will serve as a check on the findings of the main assessment exercise, and help to ensure that the scales reflect the impact of disability on capacity to perform the activities involved in work in the open market. For example, the exercise may reveal that some functional limitations are particularly important when assessed against the requirements of particular jobs, and so the scores for the assessment should be re-weighted accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen, and earlier the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the panel had met. I understand that it has met on two occasions, when it received instructions on how it was to work. I was also asked whether it was working well. I have to say that we are very grateful to the panel for the amount of work that it has done.
Noble Lords may know that we are also conducting an evaluation study to assess and check the operation of the new test. This will cross-check the relationship between the activities and the levels of activity in the assessment and those required for work. When the evaluation exercise is over, we will issue a report which will summarise all the work that we have undertaken and present our proposals for the test on which we will be seeking views. Only after all this will we present our final proposals on the test to Parliament for approval, in the form of regulations.
We are developing a test which will be a significant improvement on the current arrangements for the assessment of incapacity. In adapting the OPCS disability scales to measure incapacity for work rather than disability, we are aiming at a more objective test of incapacity. Noble Lords will, I hope, agree that, while the consultation and development period is still incomplete, it would be foolish to set down details of the test in the Bill. I can certainly assure your Lordships that our intention is as set out in the amendment. The report which we shall publish in late summer will confirm and further explain this.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment as worded at present. But we are willing to have a look at it. I have explained that we are developing

1489
the new all work test on the basis as set out in the amendment. We do not consider that it is appropriate to amend the Bill. As I have said, however, I am willing to consider the matter again in the light of the discussions we have had today. I am also willing to meet my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, before Third Reading, to see whether we can agree on a way forward. I hope that, in the light of that offer, my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may thank her for confirming that the panel has met. However, perhaps I may ask her also to clarify one phrase that she used, referring to the panel receiving instructions about how it was to work. I hope that I have referred to it correctly. To an incautious ear, that might suggest that the panel itself has never agreed to the possibility of such an objective test.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we sought to instruct the panel on the method of working and how we expected it to exercise its judgment, not how it should exercise its judgment in terms of the results. Clearly it would be pointless for us to have a panel of 80 experts if in the end we did not rely on their judgment and how they were going to assess the particular disabilities and where they were going to put them on the scale.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the matter a little further. Was the panel instructed to produce an objective test, or was it asked whether an objective test was possible?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, within the framework that we have set, we were asking the experts to exercise their judgment in terms of the ratings of disability. I think that I explained that fully at Committee stage. However, if the noble Earl wishes further explanation, I shall be happy to give it to him.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response. I am grateful for her undertaking to have a look at the amendment and what I seek to do. I shall be delighted to meet her between now and Third Reading to discuss the matter. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I am sure that he too would be delighted to meet my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She said that the panel had met twice. My understanding is that the panel is 80 strong and met in two groups of 40 to receive instructions some time before Christmas. To my way of thinking, that does not mean that all the members of the panel have had an opportunity of discussing the matter together. It seems to me that if a panel is to come forward with serious advice to my noble friend's department, all its members should have an opportunity of meeting together, so that the matter may be properly thrashed out.
I note the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that my amendment would be too inflexible to take account of possible changes in the future. I appreciate that and will examine it. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege said that some functions may have to be re-rated in the context of certain kinds of
1490
jobs. I shall not ask her to respond now, but perhaps at a later stage or in discussion we can go into the question of whether or not that means that the Government concede that some types of work make a difference to the assessment. If that is the case, why does the Bill not acknowledge it? With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may put right something on which I may have misled the House. I may have said that the panel met on two occasions; in fact they met on one occasion. My noble friend is absolutely right. It was before Christmas, in December 1993. The panel met in two groups, and that is where my confusion lay. It met in two groups because it has 80 members and it would be difficult to meet in a large group and take questions and comments with 80 people in the room. The panel was asked for its help with the detail of the tests but not, of course, the policy.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, for a group of 80 to take questions and comments in this day and age is not all that large. Much larger meetings take place where there are opportunities for questions and comments. I am sure that, with a little initiative and forethought on the right place to meet, the panel could get together. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10 line 20 after ("examination") insert (", by a medical practitioner with relevant training").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the medical officers who examine disabled people in relation to a claim for incapacity benefit are given relevant training to enable them to carry out their examinations sensitively and to arrive at a fair assessment of the person's capacity to work.
Under the new system, as we know, GPs are to continue to assess people during the first 28 weeks of a claim, but at this stage medical officers employed by the Department of Social Security are to take on an enhanced role. The patient will fill in a questionnaire, the GP will give a diagnosis, and the case will go to the Benefits Agency. The DSS may ask the GP for further clarification, but the GP will not be asked to comment on the claimant's self-assessment nor give his opinion of the ability to undertake any kind of work.
It is this change in responsibilities for assessing capacity for work that leads me to move this amendment. As it stands, the Bill does not contain any provisions on training doctors in making assessments of capacity for work. It specifies only in Clause 5 that a person may be called,
"for such … examination as may be required in accordance with regulations".
This is the case in spite of the enhanced role of the DSS doctors and the diminished role of GPs.
It is crucial that the Benefits Agency doctors are trained not only in the workings of the new incapacity

1491
benefit but in how to treat the patients who are sent to them, so that they allow them plenty of time to explain their symptoms and how they feel these affect their ability to work.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has brought to my attention a number of worrying cases. One bureau had a client who was claiming invalidity benefit and was required by the DSS to attend an examination with a medical officer. She describes the attitude of the doctor as brusque and abrupt. She felt so intimidated that she concealed the pain she was suffering during the examination and as a result spent several days in bed recovering. We must remember that many disabled people have been visiting their GP for years and may feel scared when asked to undergo examination by a stranger. They may well withhold relevant information due to an attack of nerves.
Medical officers must be alerted to the extra sensitivity required in these cases and training must be provided to deal with that. We must remember that the incident I have described, and many similarly distressing cases, took place under the current system, when the GP had more opportunity to protest if he felt his patient had received an unreasonable assessment. I am very concerned that unless DSS doctors are properly trained there will be a rise in unjust assessments of disabled people and a rise in the number of people who are classified as fit for work when common sense shows that they are not. That will mean an overburdening of the appeals system. Training doctors to give sensitive and considerate examinations lasting an appropriate length of time is much more likely to lead to fair assessments of their capacity for work.
I have also seen evidence of unsuitable suggestions by medical officers of alternative work that a disabled person could do—alternative, that is, to their usual work, even though this may be the only work that they have ever done or have ever been trained to do. One bureau has a client, a man in his fifties, who suffers from severe arthritis, poor eyesight, industrial deafness and has no feeling in his fingers. The medical officer suggested that he seek work as a bingo caller, in a snack bar or as a lavatory attendant. Calling numbers out in a busy hall, making sandwiches or cleaning public lavatories would hardly appear to be suitable work for such a disabled person—even if he were to be offered it.
This amendment brings to light other issues which are at the heart of the Bill. Many concerns have been expressed in this House about the new medical test. We are worried that it will be functional, based entirely on medical factors alone, and that it may exclude many relevant non-medical factors; for example, age or experience. I understand the Minister's reason for that. Evidence from citizens advice bureaux around the country shows DSS doctors' dismissal of fluctuations in disability to be a common problem. As was said earlier, there are fluctuations in the severity of pain which may often occur and which are also of an intermittent nature.
This amendment seeks to encourage a partnership between the GP and the DSS doctors. Giving the medical officers proper training will encourage them to use GPs' knowledge of their patients' medical histories.
1492
None of us wishes to see a further rise in inappropriate withdrawals of benefit due to poor appraisal of a person's capacity for work. A rise in appeals is costly for the taxpayer and for the claimants, who, if their appeal is successful, have to wait for the benefit that is owed to them and who in the meantime are greatly worried by their loss of income.
I welcome the Minister's promise in Committee that Benefits Agency doctors will take account of the claimant's past medical history and the information submitted by the claimant and his doctor. Will she confirm that guidelines and training on this and the other matters I have spoken about will be given to all doctors who are entrusted with the decision on whether a person is fit to join or to return to the workforce?
I urge the Government to accept the amendment, which will help GPs, DSS medical officers and disabled people. It will also help to avert an undesirable rise in appeals. It can only aid the smooth operation of the new system. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. The Department of Health's own statistics show that between 1979 and 1992 the success rate of invalidity benefit appeals rose from 21 per cent to 53 per cent. In previous debates in this House and another place we have heard about evidence from the Citizens' Advice Bureaux showing how there has been a further significant increase in recent months.
Poor decision-making by the Benefits Agency Medical Service results in an increase in appeals which in turn leads to unnecessary expense and time wasting. Let me give two examples to illustrate the point.
A CAB in Yorkshire reports the case of a man with severe tinnitus, causing lack of concentration, loss of memory and prolonged periods of sleeplessness at night owing to the barrage of noise. He was called for a medical by the Benefits Agency and at the examination was asked to undress, bend down, touch his toes and so on. Only when he mentioned tinnitus did the condition come up at all. Without any discussion, the doctor dismissed it as disturbed sleep.
A CAB in Northern Ireland reports that, although the medical examination is supposed to last for 25 to 30 minutes, it was found that in practice it sometimes took less than 15 minutes and that the emphasis was only on physical incapacity. That was inappropriate for one client who was suffering from post-natal depression.
Such incidents could be prevented by ensuring that the medical examinations are undertaken by doctors with relevant training. In turn, that would lead to fewer appeals and less wasted expense in the system.
I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions about the training provided to examiners. If she is unable to answer those questions today, perhaps she will write to me with the answers. What training will be provided for medical examiners? In particular, will they receive training to assess the practical consequences of poor health and disability on a person's ability to perform in the work setting? Will the Government arrange for disability organisations to provide their input and expertise as part of the relevant training?

1493
There is evidence that the standard of decision-making varies considerably from one area to another. Will the Government establish minimum standards for the delivery of service? For example, will they ensure that everyone has been assessed under the new work test by the 28th week of incapacity?
Moreover, for many people the examination process is very intimidating. That point has already been made. Evidence indicates that doctors frequently are bad at encouraging clients to bring out the full implications of their disability or ill health. Will training be provided to address that issue? That is another area in which voluntary organisations have expertise to offer for training.
I reiterate that it is very important that decision-making by doctors should be good, well informed and accurate. Appropriate training is crucial. If that does not take place there will be a huge rise in appeals and backlogs in the system. One would not wish to see a situation such as that which arose with the introduction of the disability living allowance, when claims took many months to process because of delays in the system.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment and ensure that good training is provided and high standards set for the delivery of service by the Benefits Agency Medical Service. That must be good management. There are a great many different disabilities. It is necessary to understand the various disabilities if assessments are to be undertaken successfully and justly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have not yet heard the response to my remarks on Amendment No. 12 about the dangers of politicising the medical tests for fitness for work. I have known enough medical people to know that they do not always agree with each other. Nevertheless, the decision on whether somebody is fit for work ought not to be a matter of party political controversy. I know that today most admirably that has not been so. However, were the matter to go outside this House and were this Bill to become law, inevitably those tests would be debated as an issue between the parties.
I understand, from having consulted other people, that practically everybody outside the range of Whitehall simply cannot believe what is being done. I am quite convinced that if the Government go ahead with this allegedly objective test the measure will collapse in the same way that the poll tax and the Child Support Act collapsed. It will happen round about the time of the next election. I would rather not have it happen that way. It calls in doubt too much. It creates too much distrust in the whole political system. I would rather see approaches made to the task of trying to tone down the measure.
It is not often that I recommend to other government departments the practice of the Department for Education and its minions but on this occasion I do so. I have referred before to the test for the university teaching assessment, where again there is a temptation to use an allegedly objective test. That has provoked a
1494
storm. The Barnett Report produced by the Higher Education Funding Council and published today recommends dealing with the problem by reducing the proportion of the assessment which is done by the allegedly objective test and increasing the proportion which is done by visits. It is just possible, though not yet certain, that that might achieve an element of compromise which will enable the measure to go forward with all-party support.
If there is a route which would enable the tests of unfitness to go forward with all-party support, it is along the lines of this amendment, by increasing the role of the doctor, in particular the doctor with specific knowledge of this specific problem, and by downgrading the share in the assessment taken by the allegedly objective test. If the Government want the Bill and the tests in it to enjoy a general reputation and the results to be accepted as having some approximation to the truth, they will either accept the amendment or institute consultations along the lines that it suggests. If not, this issue will become a party political battle outside the Chamber. It will happen if it must, but I hope that it will not.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She asked my noble friend Lady Cumberlege what training was given to the DSS doctors so that they could properly carry out assessments. In other debates we have heard of doctors in hospitals, sometimes training hospitals, who rarely see people with, for example, spinal injuries. They rarely see people with particular kinds of disability. Some doctors will go through the whole of their career and never come across a case of multiple sclerosis.
Disability is recognised because it is uncommon. It is becoming more common because of the advances of medical science. Even so, it is uncommon among the general public and that is why so many are frightened of it—but that is a different question. Can my noble friend tell the House what specific training will be given to the doctors? Where will they be recruited? Will they be doctors who have come to the end of their careers either as GPs or in hospital and want a little something to keep them occupied in their retirement, at any rate for a few years?
I am not trying to cast aspersions on the doctors. But once we reach a certain stage there is not the same likelihood that those doctors will keep up their training; it will not be necessary. Or will the doctors be recruited from potential GPs who, after moving as locum from one practice to another and being unable to be taken on as a partner, settle down with the DSS because no one else wants them? It is essential that we know what training will be given to the doctors and from where they are recruited to enable us to know that they are up to the job.
7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the arguments for the amendment have been extremely well expressed by those who have already spoken. I want to ask just a few factual questions of the Minister. I received, as did other noble Lords, a brief from the National Association of

1495
Citizens Advice Bureaux showing cases where pressure was placed on GPs by the DSS and many other examples which do not reflect well on either the speed or quality of some of the assessments. It will be helpful if the Minister can say whether the department has made any determination of how many assessors and how many actual assessments there will be. In other words, what is the likely work rate expected of the assessors? How long will they have when they are exercising the clinical judgment to which the noble Baroness referred at Committee stage? At the same time, how many visits to the general practitioner does the department expect the claimant to make? What is the comparison between the involvement of the GP and the length of time that the BAMS doctor will have to make the assessment?
I cannot believe that the DSS does not possess those figures. They are needed to form an assessment of the cost of the Bill and the effect on manpower. It would be extremely helpful to the House if the Minister could tell us.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am extremely concerned by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Wise that occasions have occurred when doctors have been brusque and not as sympathetic as they should have been. I understand also some of the criticism made this afternoon. I therefore believe, as do your Lordships, that it is essential that the doctors engaged in conducting assessments should be appropriately trained, especially when we are starting an entirely new system. Not only do the doctors need to be trained, but also the adjudication officers who will make the decisions and apply the tests. And not only do the doctors need to be trained for the examinations but also for the other aspects of the test—for example, the checking of the questionnaire for consistency.
We must ensure that the medical examination is focused principally on determining the incapacitating effects of disability and that functional assessment is documented across a wide range of physical, sensory and mental disabilities. BAMS doctors will therefore be participating in guidance and training courses to equip them both with knowledge of the new benefit and the place in it of the clinical assessment of function and its relevance to the new more objective medical test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked specific questions about training, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I suspect that what I have just said is not detailed enough and I am willing to come back with a letter setting out the information in more detail.
The structured training course will deal with the functional assessment of physical, sensory and mental disability and how those relate to capacity for work. The training will emphasise that doctors will be obliged to take account of pain, stiffness and fatigue in reaching an opinion on the effects of the person's functional limitations. Emphasis will also be placed on the importance of fluctuation, variability and relapse in those medical conditions whose nature is characteristically one of instability or variability. In particular, the "snapshot" approach will be strictly avoided. Training and guidance will emphasise that assessments will not be based on performance at the day and time of
1496
examination. The history given by the claimant and the normal evolution of the specific disease or disorder will be given for consideration.
By the very nature of their training, experience and expertise, all doctors will have gained a knowledge of the effects of disability on the functions of the body and mind. Moreover, they will be well equipped to evaluate physical and/or mental disease, the effects of such diseases and the ways in which those effects may limit function in the individual person. I am glad to say that we have already started the training programme for the Benefits Agency Medical Services doctors who will be carrying out any examinations required.
I can say to both my noble friends Lord Wise and Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady masham, that already around half of BAMS sessional doctors are existing general practitioners. There will therefore continue to be a close relationship between the various groups of doctors. The training programme has several elements. There are 200 full-time doctors employed by BAMS, many of whom are general practitioners; all those who will be conducting the incapacity test will be required to attend the training programme. Because of the numbers involved, we had to start early. In conjunction with the Benefits Agency customer services team, we have already contacted a number of disability groups to arrange a pilot series of training seminars and courses for the BAMS staff. Last week a group of about 40 doctors conducted trial incapacity examinations on 500 volunteers as part of the evaluation study. Those examinations reflected the latest developments in the test. The feedback from the doctors who took part will be used to redesign the full BAMS training programme.
I understand the reservations of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in regard to party political controversy. I share his view that we do not want this to become a patty political matter. I understand that he feels that the system we are proposing will not prove to be a success. We do not share those views. We listened carefully to what your Lordships said in this Chamber in regard to the current system, which was heavily criticised. We feel therefore that the proposal we are putting forward in terms of the medical tests and the training of doctors will be an improvement.
To return to the amendment, I hope noble Lords will be reassured that proper measures and programmes are being put into place to ensure that all those involved in the incapacity assessment—not just the doctors—are appropriately and fully trained. A further, important part of the assessment procedure is of course the guidance for staff; as I said earlier, that will be published.
In view of those comments I hope that your Lordships agree that it would not be appropriate to place this measure on the face of the Bill. I hope you will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to her for offering to write to me with the detailed figures for which I asked. However, I am a little surprised that she does not possess them. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill gives the increase in administrative costs. Apparently, 1,100 additional staff

1497
will be required for the first two years, reducing to approximately 260 from 1997–98. It will be extremely helpful if the noble Baroness will write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library to show how many assessors there will be, the estimate of the number of assessments and the time that will be given to those assessments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on those two points. We expect there to be around 1 million references to the BAMS doctors, which is around the same as there are now. About half of those will be examined. The number of BAMS doctors will therefore be around the same. The length of time taken for an examination will vary from case to case but the average will be about 30 minutes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, why does the Minister think it would not be appropriate to write this into the Bill? It seems to be a helpful amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I have said, training has already started. It is very comprehensive. I have not given quite the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for—and I shall do that—but we feel it is unnecessary as this work is already going on.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that detailed response. I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in that I cannot understand why this cannot be in the Bill if training has already taken place. My noble friend said that 50 per cent. of the doctors doing the medical test will be general practitioners. Will they continue with their own practices and just fill in part time with the tests? I do not know. But having said that, we must accept what my noble friend said, that training is taking place and that it will be adequate. I just hope that the sensitivity part of it will be thoroughly explored. It is so important that disabled people are not treated brusquely and abruptly and that full note is taken of their sensitivities and their problems. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("197th) and insert ("365th").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while an amendment debated earlier considered restoring the payment of benefit at 28 weeks, this amendment seeks to delay the application of the all-work test until long-term benefit is payable; that is, 52 weeks. The Bill redefines long-term incapacity from 28 weeks to 52 weeks, delaying the higher rate of benefit entitlement to a full year. As was debated during the Committee stage, people will receive a lower level of benefit between weeks 29 and 52 than is currently the case under invalidity benefit. However, long-term incapacity is now presumed to start after 52 weeks yet the new all-work test will be applied in most cases after 28 weeks of incapacity. This means that people who pass the test will be regarded as incapable
1498
of all work but not entitled to benefit for a further 24 weeks. That is quite extraordinary; quite, quite extraordinary.
During the Committee stage the Government reiterated that the definition of long-term incapacity is more reasonable at 52 weeks than at 28 weeks. There has been no convincing reason, as far as I can see, for this change. Since the introduction of a separate benefit —invalidity benefit—for long-term incapacity in 1971, "long term" has been defined as 28 weeks both for payment of benefit and assessment of incapacity. "Long term", I know, is a matter of imagination sometimes, but the Government seem to be changing definitions left, right and centre, rather like waiting for a No. 11 bus.
For the first 28 weeks incapacity is assessed against the person's usual occupation. Thereafter, alternative work is considered. This corresponds with payment of invalidity benefit after a period of 28 weeks on sickness benefit or statutory sick pay. While changing the definition of long-term incapacity for the purposes of incapacity benefit, a status quo of 28 weeks remains for severe disablement allowance. This is a long-term incapacity benefit for people without national insurance contributions and is payable in full after 196 days. It is therefore difficult not to escape the conclusion that the Government are choosing definitions which enable more money to be saved rather than genuinely focusing resources on disabled people who are unable to work.
The Government have said that payment of benefit is now to be divorced from the all-work test. The different rates of benefit were designed to reflect the cost of short and long-term periods of incapacity. And, to quote my noble friend Lord Astor, recorded at cols. 101–102 of the Official Report of 19th April:
"They are not in any sense a reward for passing the medical test. The rates of benefit and the test are independent of each other. If a link was intended, then the Bill would provide that the long-term rate of benefit was dependent on satisfying the all-work test".
However, it is clearly within the power of the Government to reinstate the link between incapacity assessment and payment of benefit. How will my noble friend the Minister explain to someone who has been assessed as incapable of all work that he will have to wait 24 weeks for him to be paid at the long-term rate? I believe that both my noble friends on the Front Bench have children. They may promise them a pay rise in their pocket money on their 10th birthday but then turn round and say, "But you have to wait another 24 weeks before it will actually come through". That is not quite the same, and in no way would I say that disabled people are the same as children. But it is an example.
In Committee this amendment was moved and withdrawn. In replying to that debate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to case law as determining the point at which an all-work test is to be applied. She said:
"In providing for two tests of incapacity in the Bill, we have used the case law as a basis. For the first six months of incapacity, therefore, the test will be the claimant's capacity to do his own job. Later, however, he will be tested against a wider definition, as the commissioners' decisions show. We considered that six months was a reasonable period to apply the 'own occupation' test".—[Official Report, 21/4/94; col. 322.]
Later, in the same column, she added:

1499
"In considering an unemployed person's availability for work, the Department of Employment allows only 13 weeks for the person to look for a job similar to his previous one; thereafter, he must consider all work".
Subsequently, and again recorded in the same column, she said:
"Depending on its construction, a link would discriminate for —or against—those claimants who have not had a recent regular occupation and so who are not eligible for the 'own occupation' test, but will take the all-work test at the outset".
My noble friend quoted case law which takes it that a period after which someone should be assessed against alternative work should normally be about six months, although there is no specified period. Case law in fact suggests a test of reasonableness. The commissioners have held that it is not normally reasonable in the case of short-term incapacity to expect a claimant to change his occupation. If incapacity is continued it may be reasonable to do so. Therefore, if it is reasonable to change the definition of short-term incapacity, the expectation of what type of job someone can undertake should follow the logic of case law and be consistent with what is defined as short and long-term incapacity.
Case law has not been consistently applied. The Department of Social Security has criticised it for having broadened and blurred the definition of incapacity for work far beyond the original intention. That was stated in a consultation document on the medical assessment for incapacity benefit. The Minister could—I only say "could"—be tempted to have it both ways by using case law selectively to support her claim.
There is no reason to link all work with unemployment benefit. Incapacity benefit will be payable to people who are unable to work because of sickness or disability. It is only right therefore that a longer period of time should be allowed before a person is in a position to consider alternative work. Unemployed people merely need to change their work search and expectations. Disabled people may need considerable treatment, therapy or retraining in order realistically to have the chance of alternative work.
The argument that linking the all-work test and the payment of benefit would discriminate against some people does not appear to have any greater relevance to this amendment than under the provisions of the Bill itself. Some people will go on to the all-work test immediately if they are not in remunerative work in eight out of the preceding 21 weeks. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it was moved in Committee, but he did not press it to a Division. The noble Lord has gone over the ground in great detail in explaining what the amendment is about. I do not want to cover the same ground. There seems to be a very good case for the amendment.
As we know, the Bill redefines long-term incapacity from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. People in general will receive a lower level of benefit between 29 and 52 weeks than is currently the case with invalidity benefit. We knocked a hole in that proposal to some extent by the victory we had on Amendment No.6. Nevertheless, many people who pass the new all-work test, which will be applied in most cases after 28 weeks of incapacity, will he regarded as incapable of all work but not entitled
1500
to benefit for a further substantial period. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it seems a little bizarre. I am certain that it will not make any sense at all to the people who come up against the legislation—unless we can somehow change it.
I have looked again at the noble Baroness's reasons for not accepting the amendment on the last occasion. I have re-read Hansard. I do not find what she had to say then acceptable. I really do not see why people are to be disadvantaged in a way which they would not be with invalidity benefit. The only reason which honestly appears to me to be one underlying all this is the desire to save money. I do not find that acceptable. I believe that many of your Lordships do not find it acceptable to have legislation which seeks to save money at the expense of people who are incapacitated for whatever reason.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, when he says that it is not the same as unemployment. Of course it is not. People who are incapacitated are looking at a very different work situation to that confronting people who are unemployed or who are simply seeking alternative employment if they have lost their jobs. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be more sympathetically inclined to this amendment than she was in Committee. I support the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who introduced it so ably, said that he felt that it was extraordinary that someone who passes the test of being incapable of all work at 28 weeks nevertheless will have to wait a full year on the lower level of benefit before he or she can be paid the higher rate. I agree. It is very odd when one considers that the Department of Employment has given its full support to a scheme of disability leave, initiated by the RNIB and piloted by a number of major employers including the Midland Bank, Barclays Bank and McDonald's, which recommends that an employee who becomes disabled at work should be given up to a year's leave in which to adapt to the disability and to learn new work and daily living skills required to manage the disability. Insisting that a disabled person is assessed on the all-work test after only 28 weeks undermines the whole concept of disability leave—a concept endorsed by the Department of Employment. I agree that that is extraordinary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too support the amendment. The adventures of someone seeking incapacity benefit might be written up rather like those of an Arthurian knight suffering a series of misadventures one after another. When he gets to 28 weeks he thinks he has stormed the wall of the castle. What he has done is get into the barbican and when he is there he is under fire from all sides. I support the amendment very warmly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl raises the idea of the Arthurian knight. Under the old rules of invalidity benefit that knight might be told that he was

1501
then able to do rather bizarre jobs which might not suit him. The whole purpose of the incapacity benefit and the new test is that these things do not happen.
The amendment was previously raised by my noble friend in Committee. As my noble friend explained then, the rate of benefit payable and the assessment of incapacity are two separate issues. The Bill before your Lordships proposes that where a person has had a regular occupation, the all-work test shall be applied at the 29th week of incapacity. Until the 29th week, the own-occupation test will be applicable. This is intended to reflect the current system. The present law provides that the test of incapacity for work is capacity to do work which a person can be reasonably expected to do. Decisions taken by the social security commissioners have held that where capacity for work is only temporarily impaired, this means assessing a person's capacity for his usual job. In such circumstances it would not be fair to expect the claimant to change his usual occupation. In time, however, it is reasonable to measure his incapacity against a wider field of work.
In providing for two tests of incapacity in the Bill, we have used the case law as a basis. For the first six months of incapacity, therefore, the test will be the claimant's capacity to do his own job. Later, however, he will be tested against a wider definition, as the commissioners' decisions show.
We considered that six months was a reasonable period to apply the own-occupation test. In considering an unemployed person's availability to work, the Department of Employment allows only 13 weeks for the person to look for a job similar to his previous one; thereafter he must consider all work. Were we to extend the qualifying period for the all-work test, it could mean that, for example, a diver blind in one eye who was perfectly fit in all other respects would continue to receive incapacity benefit for a whole year before the all-work test was applied. He would clearly be unable to return to his own occupation, but on no basis could he or should he be considered incapable of all work.
The second issue is the linking of benefit rates to the application of particular tests. We have deliberately sought to keep these two areas separate because they are different. It is not the case that passing a certain test brings a higher or lower level of benefit. Depending on its construction, a link would discriminate for or against those claimants who have not had a recent regular occupation and so who are not eligible for the own-occupation test but will take the all-work test at the outset. This is not our intention. Benefit rates are designed to be linked to the length of a person's period of incapacity and the needs arising therefrom.
The all work test is an assessment of capacity to do a range of work—that is, all work—it is not a test of long-term incapacity. The test assesses the extent of incapacity rather than the length of incapacity. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked how one can relate the three benefit rates: the long-term benefit rate; the short-term rate and the higher short-term rate. I think that we have already had that debate when we considered Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships rejected earlier. We believe that 52 weeks is a more appropriate
1502
definition of "long-term incapacity". Within the first year of sickness, many people can and often do return to work. After 12 months, return to work is less likely and the benefit structure rightly reflects that. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said. From what I have understood from listening to him, I am not sure that he has convinced me. He has taken a particularly exceptional case—that of a one-eyed diver. Yes, I agree that a one-eyed diver, working at very considerable depths around the footings of a North Sea oil rig and with the valves on the sea bed, would probably not be able to do his work. However, I would not be at all surprised if during that period of incapacity he did not go diving in the Mediterranean, with his one eye, purely for pleasure—but not at such great depths. I was thinking of rather less specialised forms of industrial injury, such as the case of someone who has a heart attack and who will take some time before being able to return to his own work. If my noble friend, God forbid, were to have a heart attack, he would be off work for, say, six months, but he is a capable Minister and I can see no reason why he should not return to his job after six or nine months.
I feel that I must give the matter more consideration between now and Third Reading and I hope that my noble friend will do the same. However, I reserve the right, having given the matter that extra thought, to return to it on Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Provision may be made by regulations as to the application of this section in cases where a person engages in more than one occupation or in different kinds of work.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies the application of the own-occupation test at the onset of incapacity. As your Lordships may realise, we intend that, for the first 28 weeks, a person's incapacity should be measured against his own occupation. We therefore require a definition of "own occupation".
When we looked again at Section 171B, it was not clear whether we had the necessary powers to include certain people within the provision. The amendment ensures that we do have the necessary powers to do so and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 33, leave out (", in such cases as may be prescribed,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not earlier than 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Ex-Servicemen and Women
7.35 p.m.
Earl Haig Earl Haig rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: what steps they are taking to promote the welfare of ex-servicemen and women; and whether they will establish a special veterans' unit within a government department to co-ordinate this activity.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to raise some points of concern about ex-servicemen and women. I thank all those of your Lordships who are taking part in the debate, among them the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who is the national vice-president of the Royal British Legion. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle represents the very strong Geordie ex-service element. The three of us are descended from Sir Hussey Vivian who commanded a cavalry brigade at Waterloo. My noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Holderness were both severely wounded in the last war, since when they have been involved in government office and in work for the disabled.
Our system of support for the disabled has stood the test of time since 1st August 1919 when the Select Committee on War Pensions made its first recommendations. Those recommendations were accepted by my father with the words:
"I am prepared to be satisfied—and in any event I recognise that a great advance has been made".
He went on to say:
"The fact that the state has acknowledged what is due from it should not be taken to absolve the individual from doing all that lies in his power to supplement the state's action".
The system has involved a partnership between the Government and voluntary organisations, principally the Royal British Legion which represents the interests of all ranks and their widows from all branches of the Armed Forces, free of charge, regardless of whether they are members of the organisation. On their side, government departments are responsible for providing the compensations and financial support to which individuals are entitled according to financial legislation.
Due to the difficulties of old age which add to the effects of war disabilities, there is an avalanche of new cases for the appeal tribunals to deal with. Not all the appeals are soundly based, but nevertheless they have to be handled by Legion staff, paid for from benevolence money. This year in Scotland there will be a need for a second appeal court and a second appeals officer. All this work is greatly facilitated by the good relationship which exists between the Royal British Legion and the Department of Social Security. The needs of ex-service people are in many ways better provided for than they have ever been. The rates of our pensions compare
1504
favourably with those in other European countries, at a cost to the taxpayer of over £1 billion per year, now provided through the new War Pensions Agency.
Thanks to generous redundancy payments and good briefing, the effects of Options for Change have not been bad and individuals who are suffering from the change are in the minority. The Triservice Resettlement Organisation provides resettlement advice,. co-ordinates retraining courses and has established a job matching network. In addition, the Officers' Association is playing its part as an employment agency
However, because of the number of different agencies, some co-ordinating body is required. The Royal British Legion has signalled for some time the need to establish a special veterans' unit within a government department, under one Minister with responsibility for ex-service matters who would oversee the resettlement operation. The unit would act as a focus for policy-making and as an advice centre to help people to make the right approaches.
Time has passed since the last war and fewer members of the Civil Service and fewer Members of Parliament (from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence downwards) have any experience of service in the Armed Forces. Until recently, most of the civil servants and local authority staff with whom the Legion's people had to deal had served in the forces. In the early years of the Legion my father argued for staff appointments to be given to men who had been wounded or who had suffered in war, Today the situation is different. The awareness of the realities of service life has been lost. One example of a failure to understand because of a lack of personal experience was the Government's recent inability to distinguish between D-Day and VE-Day.
Given the increasing numbers of Second World War people who need help, there is a strong case for a government department to help the ever-ageing, ex-service community to deal with officialdom. Those who are close to ex-service organisations would obviously turn to them for help, but many are not: necessarily connected with the Legion, or regimental or other associations. It is those people who have a myriad of problems ranging from disability to housing resettlement who would benefit considerably from having one agency to which they could speak which would at least understand their problems.
The confusion involved in dealing with several government departments applies not just to the older ex-servicemen and women and widows but to younger people who are leaving the services and who are seeking resettlement in civilian life.
One example of a case which illustrates the need for an ex-service unit is that of the three guardsmen who suffered dreadful injuries and loss of limbs on an exercise in Canada. Their struggle to obtain rehabilitation and appropriate levels of compensation was only successful after years of campaigning, both on their own behalf and by other organisations in the service and ex-service movements. The matter was discussed in Parliament and it was that, coupled with the wide

1505
coverage in the media, which highlighted their problems and difficulties, that led to some measure of justice eventually being done.
It is our experience in the Legion that no matter how sympathetic is the war pensions Minister to ex-servicemen and their affairs the response invariably is that no funds are available to solve their problems. The Minister who went down really well at one of our conferences was my noble friend Lady Trumpington who spoke at election time and of course was unable to talk about politics. The result was that she made a speech which included some good stories that I dare not quote to your Lordships, but which went down much better than a set speech.
A junior Minister has little clout in those government departments which control government funds. The ex-service community is marginalised unless the various organisations club together in a mass lobby, as happened with war widows' pensions. There would be a greater opportunity to get things right if there were an ex-service unit to co-ordinate action, to investigate problems as they arise, and then to deal with them as sensitively, efficiently, and quickly as possible.
With regard to costs, it is the legion's view that a veterans' unit within an existing department, possibly the MoD or the DSS, would be able to provide the required expertise without the need for a second tier of administration. In the Legion's view there would even be a saving in administrative costs, and a better service would be provided. By having a co-ordinating centre for ex-service matters, individuals would be directed to the right place to deal with them without the shuttling between departments and consequent delay.
The Legion has felt that there should have been closer liaison between the Government and ex-service organisations over the changes in war pensions for noise-induced deafness. The DSS should have consulted the Legion before the announcement was made, if only to give it a chance to challenge it. Another bone of contention between the Legion and the DSS has been the introduction of legislation on smoking. It was easy for servicemen under pressure to become addicted when cigarettes were issued as part of the ration. I remember how many in PoW camps depended upon their cigarettes issued with Red Cross parcels. For some the craving became so great that the contents of food parcels were swopped for cigarettes. Some even resorted to scavenging old cigarette ends which they hoarded and re-used. The Legion felt that the new proposals to exclude smoking as a factor of service has debarred from compensation many with justified smoking addiction.
It is my view that a veterans' unit within a government department would be able to co-ordinate ex-service affairs and to focus support in directions where there is a real need. In that way, the ex-serviceman and woman would have greater confidence than they have at present that their interests are looked after. They feel that the Legion's democratic voice is not being listened to by politicians. They suffer from a sense of injustice. Some way must be found to
1506
ease the situation. Something must be done, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister who will reply on behalf of the Government will listen this evening.
Let us remember the way in which servicemen and women have carried out their duties over the year. In return, the least that we can do is to give to them the care which they need and deserve. In their turn, those who are given houses and jobs will give to their communities the same comradeship and service as that which prevailed in the forces.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the four minutes available to me, I shall explain one reason why I support the proposal made by my noble friend for a special veterans' unit. The unit should be small and under the wing of one department but in touch with all government departments. Because of retirement ages, there cannot now be, anyone left working full time in government departments who is a World War II veteran.
The need for better understanding was illustrated recently by the sudden and unexpected announcement by the Department of National Heritage that street parties and other local celebrations were to be organised to mark D-Day. That was unexpected because the MoD had already worked out appropriate plans, announced on 6th January by the Prime Minister, for Normandy and the Portsmouth area, where dignified events of thanksgiving and remembrance were proposed.
A veterans' unit could ensure that recent history was recalled clearly and not distorted. For example, 6th June 1944 started a period of anxiety and suspense for most of the British public. A beachhead was being won, but against many hazards, and it had to be held and reinforced by the continuous landings of many more troops and weapons in June and July. The weather would be an unknown factor, and in the event serious delays were caused for several days by stormy sea conditions. As a result, plans had to be modified; our soldiers had to withstand the arrival of fresh enemy armour; and the crucial and intense battles to break out of the beachhead were postponed by a week or more with a high price in casualties.
To recognise the full measure of achievement by Allied forces against the hazards, adversities and tough opponents at least 70 days of hard fighting in Normandy must be recalled. It took more than a month after D-Day to capture Caen, eight miles inland; and the nearby Hill 112, occupied and given up at the end of June, was not finally retaken until nearly four weeks later.
The moment for some relief and satisfaction came when the Normandy campaign ended successfully at the end of August. It was the sweeter because the Allies' rapid advance into Belgium and Holland soon put London beyond the range of V1 and V2 missiles which had first come into action that June.
There were many other D-Days in World War II, several of them later in Normandy and in the North West Europe theatre. That of 6th June was so sensational that it has provided a popular name for the 10-week campaign, "D-Day Landings". That led to an

1507
impression that the Allied forces all arrived on one day. Even the first leading article in The Times on 21st April stated:
"1 million Allied troops poured into occupied Europe in a single day".
That was more than six times the actual number. The Times was merely repeating a widespread misconception. However, it does not do justice to the fighting men involved or the commanders and staff coping with the difficulties arising from delayed landings. The Times published a short letter from me clarifying the situation —short because the Imperial War Museum, no less, had also written, and its letter, with precise figures, appeared with mine.
An organisation called the Normandy Veterans Association has developed recently, with branches in different parts of the UK. Your Lordships will note that they are not D-Day veterans—they are not called that —because only about one in four of them landed on D-Day. The other three do not want to be treated as if they did too. But they also had notable and perilous experiences in Normandy.
On the subject of casualties, the Allies' D-Day casualty figures were multiplied by 20 by the end of the campaign in Normandy in August. From what I have been saying, it will come as no surprise that the press reports that the Government, at the request of the Normandy veterans, have agreed to postpone any function in Hyde Park until August.
I am sure that the permanent existence of a small veterans' unit would have helped the media during the past year to get their military history right and to keep government departments informed of the feelings of the veterans. That is no reflection on the temporary unit which was set up a year ago in the Ministry of Defence to make and to co-ordinate arrangements for commemorations. It has been doing a magnificent job, but it is temporary. It is totally absorbed in immediately defined tasks.
I hope that the Government will take special care about commemorations for VJ Day. Sometimes our troops in Burma felt that they were a forgotten army. The Burma Star Association and other organisations of veterans can provide their views in good time if they are sought.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House. Many of your Lordships have been in the situation in which I find myself tonight; that is, having to be in two places at the same time. Unfortunately, I may have to leave the Chamber early and I hope that your Lordships will understand. Nevertheless, I wished to make an endeavour to support the noble Earl, Lord Haig. His illustrious father created the Royal British Legion and today all members of the Haig family make weekly contributions in some way to assist the Royal British Legion in every part of our land. That should be put on the record and I am proud to be able to do so.
As the national vice-president of the Royal British Legion, I wish to pay my respects to all my colleagues in this House who will contribute to the debate or who have come here today to back us up. I am grateful for
1508
that too. We in the British Legion have seen so many touching incidents. We have seen people of my own age —in their mid-seventies—who have fallen into difficulties and do not know where to turn. There is one magic phrase and it applies in Scotland, Wales., Northern Ireland and in England. It is: "Why don't you go and see whether the British Legion can help?". Often people come back and tell me, "The most wonderful thing has happened to me since I left the services all those years ago. When I had a difficulty somebody advised me to go to see the British Legion and they worked wonders". My response is, "When are you joining?"
The plea which the noble Earl made today is very important. I do not expect the Minister to give complete and absolute assurances on what the noble Earl and I have said. We know that there are men and women who have served in all branches of our British forces ands who have difficulties. If we could have more access to Ministers via an equivalent of a Minister of State life would not be easier but we could be more efficient on behalf of the members of the Royal British Legion. That is what we are after.
I beg the Minister to give those comments some consideration. I do not expect anything to be done overnight—we know that it cannot—but the noble Earl and I will settle for a reasonable assurance that what has been suggested today is worthy of any government's examination.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter and I wholeheartedly support what he said, certainly as regards the first part of his Question. I do not imagine that any Member of this House or another place does not believe that the welfare of those who remain must be the first care of the Government. I am glad that all governments, including those in which I played some part, have made that a primary part of their policy.
I remember playing a small part on both sides in the generally friendly relationship between the government and the voluntary organisations. It is therefore of great satisfaction to me to hear an organisation such as BLESMA (British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association) expressing great satisfaction with the relationship that exists with the office of my noble friend Lord Astor, his officials and the War Pensions Agency. It has avowed that that relationship has never been better. However, in case my noble friend Lord Astor is inclined to rest on his laurels, I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will point out to him that it could be better still.
For many years voluntary organisations and government have co-operated closely and that co-operation has been fruitful. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will be prepared to look favourably on a proposal which will make that relationship even more fruitful. I am not asking for a change in what is known as the statutory disregard, but it would be of enormous help to a great number of needy people who are getting quite old if voluntary

1509
organisations were able to use their considerable funds to provide more help without affecting the income-related benefits to which they are entitled.
With the help of the great organisations—that is, the War Pensions Agency, the War Pensioners Welfare Service, and more recently the Medical Discharge and Resettlement Committee which was established by the Ministry of Defence —I am satisfied that sources of help exist for ex-service people and their dependants. However, I believe that there also exists a communications problem. While giving my noble friend Lord Haig my wholehearted support, I wonder whether the special veterans' unit that he is proposing will be able to clarify the position for ex-service people any more than my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, in spite of his tireless work, has been able completely to remove all problems of communication in his own field.
Although it sounds less ambitious and uninspiring, I believe that the problem of communication can best be solved by continuing patience, perseverance and persistence on behalf of local authorities, health authorities, the Department of Social Security and a host of other agencies across the country, not forgetting organisations such as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. It is there, rather than in my noble friend's chosen instrument, that the possibility of further progress lies.
7.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, as time presses and each of us has so little time in which to speak, I shall come straight to the subject which I wish to draw to the attention of the House and the Government. It is the matter of war disablement pensions and the discretion allowed to local authorities —for instance, in the calculation of council rents—to disregard the income received by holders of those pensions. I understand that the greater number of authorities exercise their discretion in favour of the holders of war disablement pensions. However, some local authorities do not disregard them, or disregard them only to a limited degree. Not surprisingly, those whose pensions are not disregarded feel a sense of injustice, which rankles for several reasons.
First, those who have been injured in the service of their country surely deserve generous treatment and, if anything, discrimination in their favour; secondly, this matter should not be left to chance, depending on one's place of residence, with some pensioners being lucky and others not; thirdly, the decisions of local councils affect pensioners who are council tenants. Being council tenants, they are likely to be people of modest means. In some instances, they receive very little benefit from their war disablement pensions. Therefore, the problem is likely to be most acute in areas in which traditionally there have been high levels of recruitment.
I am told that some councils would dearly like to be able to disregard those war disablement pensions but find themselves unable to do so on account of the numbers of people involved.
1510
In all that, I have concentrated on war disablement pensions but similar questions apply also with regard to war widows' pensions and, indeed, all war pensions. At present discretion in those matters lies with local authorities. That works in a way which is manifestly unsatisfactory. The issues need to be addressed by some organ or limb of central government.
The Question before us mentions a unit in a government department for veterans. If there were a unit responsible for the affairs and welfare of ex-servicemen the difficulties on which I have touched would, I am certain, soon be resolved. I submit that that all adds weight to the Question which the noble Earl has tabled for discussion this evening.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I also support and thank my noble kinsman for bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. Some of your Lordships will be aware that only a, few years ago, I became an ex-serviceman. Since then, I have been interested in ex-servicemen's affairs. I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the many supportive systems which have been implemented during the past few years to deal with the great number of servicemen forced to leave the services as a result of the reduction in force levels which stemmed from Options for Change.
Resettlement courses have been of a high standard and are much appreciated. The setting up of the Forces Resettlement Group has been highly successful. Redundancy payments have been fair and welcome. However, there is a feeling among ex-servicemen and women that although a great deal is done for them at their time of departure from the services it seems to tail off rather quickly thereafter.
Some resentment already exists within the ex-service community, not just because the older members of that community are experiencing more difficulty in relation to their wounds as they grow older; not because the younger element have been made redundant through defence cuts, albeit with generous redundancy payments; but because they feel, like many of your Lordships, that cuts have been excessive and that their past sacrifices may have been in vain. They feel that the Government should take a greater interest in individual ex-servicemen or women throughout the remainder of their lives and not just when they are leaving.
Recently I have consulted a number of ex-service organisations and it is true to say that they do not all speak with one voice. Some would welcome one central co-ordinating authority with which to deal, but others are content with the existing system; for example, there is already an efficient and well-run agency dealing with war pension problems, which is highly spoken of and to which your Lordships have referred already this evening. I agree that it would be wrong to become involved in duplication of effort and consequently I believe that it would be beneficial to ex-servicemen and women and their organisations, and helpful to the Government, if one small central co-ordinating authority could be established within the DSS. That could be used as a focal point to feed in all ex-service problems.

1511
I believe that such an agency would speed up answers to queries on problems and would probably save money in the long term. It would instil ex-service personnel with a greater confidence that their affairs are being attended to promptly and with care.
In conclusion, I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention these points. First, on balance I believe that there would appear to be a need for an ex-service affairs unit to advise, co-ordinate and act as a focal point.
Secondly, the distance in time from a major conflict makes compelling the case for a sub-department or agency to look after ex-service affairs, because fewer members of the public and senior members of government have any experience of the Armed Forces. Furthermore, appeals for help from the wartime generation are growing and are likely to do so for some years to come as those whose lives were blighted by war, through mental or physical injury or both, find those disadvantages seriously exacerbated by old age.
Thirdly, the special knowledge gained and the close contact that would be developed with the other ministries would not only lead to speedier and more efficient resolution of individual problems but would ensure also that important matters affecting ex-service people could be properly aired.
This is an opportunity for the Government to show to the whole country their gratitude to our ex-servicemen and women —young and old. Last Sunday in Hyde Park I attended the 70th Annual Combined Cavalry Old Comrades Parade where a wreath was laid and the "Last Post" and "Reveille" sounded. As always, it was a moving and sad occasion ending with those immortal words,
"We will remember them".
This evening I ask that the Government continue to remember our ex-service personnel and create a small ex-service affairs unit.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Burnharm: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vivian understates the situation when he says that the ex-service charities do not always think alike. But, generally, they have been pressing for a discrete department to look after "veterans", and we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Haig for raising the matter this evening. The service charities have not served their cause well by seeming at one time to be pressing for a complete department to look after veterans' affairs and by failing even now to express an opinion in which department of state the unit should be situated.
The wording of my noble friend's Question reflects the now firm statement that it is only a unit within a department which is being sought and there is little doubt that the department concerned should be the Department of Social Security. But whichever ministry it is, it should not be the Ministry of Defence. That body, in effect, ceases to be interested in a man or woman the day he or she leaves the service. From then on it becomes a social matter. But the most important thing is
1512
that there should be a single place where all the peculiar problems which affect the ex-serviceman can be co-ordinated.
It is true that the ex-service charities are fine ones to talk about a single co-ordinating body. Goodness knows how many members there are of COBSEO—theCouncil of British Serving and Ex-Service Organisations. The Handbook for Nautical Charities, which I published at the. end of last year, lists 44 tri-service charities and a total of 165 for serving and ex-serving members of the Royal and Merchant Navies. Many of them, of course, are local and totally independent, but there is a considerable amount of overlap.
In that context, I must underline that if there is to be such a unit, the welfare of the men and women of the Merchant Navy should not be forgotten. There is no need to underline the value of that service during the war and its affairs, too, should come under the unit's remit.
I would, with respect, query one word in my noble friend's Question; namely, the use of the word "veterans". I know why he has used it. Similar bodies in the United States, Canada and Australia are described as departments of veterans' affairs. But the word gives a misleading impression of the scope of the proposed unit; or I hope it does. "Veterans" gives the feeling of gentlemen in their seventies and over who fought in the war. It is different for the United States, and to a lesser extent, Australia, whose servicemen were involved in the conflict in Vietnam.
Here, many ex-servicemen who may make use of such a unit are not veterans in that sense. Morale is low in the services because of Options for Change, and there are many problems involved in the resettlement of those who are leaving. Accommodation, particularly, curiously, for those who are unmarried, is a major difficulty and retraining, not only for the men themselves but for their wives, which has to begin long before a man leaves, is far from adequate in spite of the efforts of the Royal British Legion at Tidworth and other centres.
Other servicemen leave because of difficulties with their domestic arrangements, their physical or mental well-being or simply because of an inability to get on in service life. The solution of their problems urgently needs a single department where answers to the different situations can be co-ordinated. A service engagement is by no means necessarily long lasting—there is much short service—and those who are affected by its end are frequently young and inexperienced. That is another reason why service life is different to civilian employment.
Even if they have served in Northern Ireland or the Gulf, most of the people affected are still not veterans. Their problems are likely to be different from those affecting the men and women who fought in the war, in Palestine, Korea or Malaya. Most of those are now becoming old with problems which have arisen solely because of their service 50 or more years ago. A noble Lord drew attention to the issue of cigarettes, which were a palliative for all problems.

1513
However, it is not only social problems that the proposed unit would aid. Many noble Lords have been distressed by the confusion which has arisen concerning D-Day celebrations —affairs which the Royal Navy wish to ignore totally, having celebrated the Battle of the Atlantic in 1993 and preferring to wait for 1995. It is hard to feel that there would have been the same problems if there had been one single unit to co-ordinate the celebrations. For all those reasons, I wish to commend the views of my noble friend Lord Haig to my noble friend the Minister and the Government.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I should like to support my noble kinsman. As president of the Earl Haig branch of the Royal British Legion I am well aware of the problems faced by the Legion in dealing, and in many cases arguing, with 17 different government departments on a wide range of issues. I would welcome a special veterans' or ex-servicemen's unit as proposed by the Legion. I am convinced that it would not create another tier of government or extra administration but rather that it would improve efficiency.
Many countries have ex-service departments, including the more well-known ones in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia and the less well-known such as those in Poland and Taiwan. In Europe, France, Holland and Germany have more co-ordination within their administrations and special facilities for former service people, either through a special department or within a subsection of their ministry of defence. Legion people have visited all those countries and found the systems to be working to the benefit of veterans, their dependants and widows and to the advantage of the governments concerned.
I should like to focus briefly on the problems of veterans with noise-induced deafness. As a former serviceman who received a disablement gratuity for Army-related deafness I am very sympathetic to them. The system seemed grossly unfair as present policy is to deny compensation to those whose deafness is assessed at less than 20 per cent. That 20 per cent. is a selective, mean and meaningless figure. A former serviceman with one good ear but who is totally deaf in the other is assessed as less than 20 per cent. deaf, which means no compensation.
Another problem is where the sensory hair cells in the inner ear have been damaged. It is a common disability of my generation for those who have been exposed, without ear protection, to high velocity rifles, especially the SLR. As a result, high frequencies are lost, making conversation in many environments, even in your Lordships' House, difficult and at times impossible. As yet, no hearing aid has been invented solely to pick up high tones. In many cases the sufferer, whatever age he may be, is unemployable. However, if low frequencies are undamaged in those cases, the affliction will be assessed at less than 20 per cent., which also means no compensation. I question why
1514
former servicemen should be treated in that way. Surely independent tribunals should decide the seriousness of each case.
I must tell my noble friend the Minister that the subject causes resentment. I accept that the limit was introduced for monetary considerations. However, it was done without the opportunity of parliamentary debate. Instead it was discussed with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, whose advice was disregarded.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dormer: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend this evening. Servicemen and women have given the best years of their lives in the service of their country. In so doing they have endured hardship, separation from their wives and families and sometimes danger. When they retire they are surely entitled to a reasonable settlement in return to civilian life. I am thinking not only of a financial settlement but also of suitable and generous support in medical treatment for whatever disability they may have incurred during their service lives. From time to time some of us have thought that the provision of such medical care falls short of what might reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
I fully agree with my noble friend that what is wanted is a central body which can list those who suffer from a disability of whatever kind as a result of their service and can co-ordinate medical care for them. The country owes a great deal to its servicemen and women—a fact of which we are all being made aware almost daily. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will lend a very sympathetic ear to what has been said in tonight's short debate.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the few minutes that remain in the gap perhaps I may ask your Lordships to include with the veterans their widows and their families. That would give a voice to some of the smallest groups, including the widows of those officers who retired before 1973 and who get only one-third of their husband's pension instead of one-half and those widows of post-retirement marriages who have little pension if the qualifying service was before 1978 and none if it was afterwards. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to say that.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word on behalf of the War Widows Association to my noble friend the Minister. All my ladies are already very devoted to my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Astor. Any closer association that they could have with either of them would be very much appreciated.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on the timeliness of the debate. The Government made fools of themselves about D-Day and we trust and hope that they are now searching for something really good that they can do. I believe that the noble Earl has given them the opportunity to agree that here we have a worthy object with which to commemorate D-Day.

1515
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, talk about deafness because I too am deaf. The Government very kindly gave me an award because they alleged that the deafness was caused by flying non-pressurised aircraft. I was very glad to accept both the money and that explanation. Deafness has great advantages on occasions because one can screw off the hearing aid during certain speeches in this House; indeed, in quite a few speeches.
However, I do not want to be nasty to the Government altogether, because I am a member of the war pensions committee. I was most impressed by the work carried out by the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, were the Ministers concerned. I was quite impressed with them, but I was even more impressed by the members of the committee, who are as tough a collection of ex-service babies—if that is the correct description—as I have ever seen. They really knew their stuff. The Minister and his department really had to attend to what they said.
I am also interested in the set-up of the War Pensions Agency. Quite apart from the fact that it has published a glossy leaflet—indeed, every agency seems to—the workload is most significant. The annex to the leaflet refers to the alleged workload for next year and quotes a figure for first deafness claims of 53,000. It also refers to a figure of 34,100 for other other first claims; 32,900 for further/deterioration/invaliding claims; 9,300 for assessment appeals; and a figure of 7,600 for entitlement appeals. We obviously have a tremendous problem which that agency is tackling, I think, rather well. I think that the Government could well emulate this.
It is true that the greatest problem probably is that of the war pensioner who is now reaching an age when he needs more help, and solving it depends very largely on the voluntary bodies finding war pensioners, helping them and telling them where they can obtain the help. I trust that the Government's financial help to these bodies is substantial because they are the people who really will find out about these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, bemoaned the fact that civil servants dealing with this matter are now much younger. But as long as there is a House of Lords there will be work for people of our age to stand up to speak for the pensioners.
I finish on the matter of employment for people who are made redundant from, or who come out of, the services for various reasons now. In that case the service departments must busy themselves and set about arranging proper training to enable these men and women to find jobs. There is nothing worse than coming out of the services and being totally disowned and not knowing how to go about finding work or where to find it. I believe that to tackle that situation would be an admirable first step for the Government.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Haig, for asking this Question. It is a matter of great importance, as the House will recognise, and I for my part am grateful to him. I am also, if I may say so, grateful to the noble Earl
1516
for sending me some remarks that he was going to make because it allowed me to consider my response and indeed to discuss the response that I might put to the House with my colleagues in another place.
We have a very great deal of sympathy with the thrust of the Question that the noble Earl has put to the Government. There is no doubt that we should honour and protect those who have fought gallantly and the dependants of those who have fought gallantly for Her Majesty and the United Kingdom. I do not think there is any doubt in your Lordships' House that that is a principle which we must observe. Having said that, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Haig, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in saying that I regret, and I regret it very seriously, that the Government seem to have mixed up D-Day with VE-Day—D-Day is an occasion on which fighting men and women performed certain functions and VE-Day is the day when we should all rejoice in reconciliation, and we should have whatever spam fritters we want, but we should have parties. I regret very much that the Government seem to have mixed up the two.
There certainly is a need for better co-ordination to deal with the many areas of interest to ex-service personnel. This is particularly true, if I may say so, at a time when the rather haphazard nature of defence planning under this Government has led to a good deal of confusion and uncertainty. There is concern about the complexity of the benefits system and what I can only regard as the jungle of rules and regulations that can apply to an individual case. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in regretting the decision to restrict the compensation available for noise-induced deafness arising from service in the forces without adequate consultation—this is the point. That is just one example of how the Government do not seem to take on board this problem.
But having said that, there are difficulties, in our view, with creating an entirely separate Department of State, as some have argued for, overlapping many existing ministries. We are considering setting up a special unit within the Ministry of Defence, with a specific Minister, to look after all questions relevant to ex-service personnel in that department. Such a specific ministerial appointment would give, in our view, status and new authority to these issues. Under the Department of Social Security the new War Pensions Directorate has just been established and we hope it will give a more focused and efficient service to ex-service personnel and their families. Nevertheless, while we are. still in Opposition, we shall continue to monitor what the Government are doing in this respect, and when in government we will not hesitate to take further action as and when that is necessary because., as I hope the Minister when he comes to reply to this Question will understand, this is not an issue which should be taken lightly, particularly in your Lordships' House.
8.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haig has indeed, as many of your Lordships have recognised this evening, done your Lordships' House a considerable service in raising this Question this evening. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that every Member of your Lordships' House would insist that former servicemen and women deserve to be honoured by their country and that they should feel that part of being honoured is being treated fairly by the nation.
Indeed, the formidable and knowledgeable case made by your Lordships this evening, particularly by the manifold sprigs —if I may put it that way to my noble friends—of the Haig family, whose devotion to this particular cause I think all of your Lordships greatly admire, demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has already said, that we take this Question extremely seriously. I can assure your Lordships that that is indeed what we in Her Majesty's Government do. However, I have to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, in spite of his assertion to the contrary, that I for one would very much doubt that the existence of a department of veterans' affairs, or even a special unit within either the Department of Social Security or the Ministry of Defence, would have made much difference to what was proposed for D-Day.
I have, as the Minister to whom matters concerning former servicemen fall within the Ministry of Defence, received and answered many hundreds of letters over the past few months from members of the Royal British Legion advocating the establishment of a department of veterans' affairs. Of course I greatly welcome this further evidence, if any indeed were needed, of the assiduity with which the Royal British Legion pursues the interests of its members, as indeed do many other ex-servicemen's organisations. I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Burnham. We value their advice and esteem the work they do. Indeed, we would always want to ensure that we kept open the channels of communication between the Royal British Legion and my department.
However, I must confess to a mild degree of scepticism, however much I would wish to follow your Lordships in everything that you suggest to me, as to how effective the Royal British Legion's proposal would be in improving the existing lot of servicemen and women, to say nothing of the practical difficulties of arranging the administration and legislation to make it work. Equally, my noble friend's rather more modest proposal may, I suspect, be open to the same sort of objections, if on a rather more restricted scale.
If your Lordships will allow me, I would like therefore to take advantage of the opportunity my noble friend has so kindly given me to set out Her Majesty's Government's position. Indeed I am particularly delighted that my noble friend Lord Haig recognised the efforts that the Government have made, particularly of late, in this field.
Much is often made in discussions on this important subject of the fact that other countries have departments
1518
of what they often call veterans' affairs or units of the kind that my noble friend advocates. Your Lordships will be aware that such departments tend to concentrate on providing medical services to ex-servicemen, but not exclusively. The trend in this country is exactly the opposite, as your Lordships will be aware. Indeed, we try to make sure that ex-servicemen and their dependants have full access to the health and social security services available to the population at large. That is, I would submit, a practical approach and there is a further reason for adopting it which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to come to in a minute.
That is not to say that we do not recognise that ex-servicemen and women have special needs. Those needs are many and perhaps I may give your Lordships a few examples. The House will observe from their wide range that the Government already have in place substantial administrative arrangements which can be and have been enhanced or adapted for ex-servicemen and which it might be less effective to attempt to duplicate.
The example that perhaps evokes our greatest sympathy, and to which many of your Lordships referred, is the example of the disabled ex-servicemen. Noble Lords will know that the Government have not only preserved the preferential provisions of the war pensions scheme but have also done much to enhance it. Despite a considerably increased workload, performance in dealing with claims has improved and the War Pensioners' Welfare Service continues to provide a comprehensive service for war pensioners and their dependants. I am glad that so many of your Lordships paid tribute to the work of the War Pensions Agency, which aims to provide an even better service to war pensioners as a special group of customers.
My noble friend Lord Astor, the Minister with special responsibility for war pension matters, regularly meets and consults the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. He also meets representatives of local war pensions committees, and, needless to say, my noble friend and I liaise closely on these matters.
I should also like to confirm that the long-standing arrangements which enable war pensioners to be given priority when referred to the National Health Service for treatment of their pensioned disablements still apply, subject of course to the needs of emergency and other urgent cases.
To take another example, we are committed to ensuring that personnel leaving the services make a smooth transition to civilian life, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. This was recognised by my noble friend Lord Vivian, and I was grateful for what he said in that respect. My department has explained to employers the many qualities that service leavers have to offer as employees. This has been supported by a number of initiatives which have resulted in many offers of job opportunities for service leavers.
All service personnel undergo a varied and extensive training programme. We provide comprehensive resettlement advice and support and an extensive range of briefings and training courses which incorporate

1519
arrangements for on-the-job training and the introduction of non-vocational qualifications. Those are elements of what I hope your Lordships will consider a comprehensive package, particularly as it includes encouragement of home ownership within the services and help for those leaving, including a new services home saving scheme and a focus for housing advice for all serving personnel and ex-service personnel who are still in married quarters. I could give other examples if time permitted.
I submit, even in the face of some of the remarks which have been made this evening, that liaison with other government departments is the right approach on this important subject. By bringing other government departments into the process rather than isolating them from servicemen's affairs, we can ensure that they appreciate the particular difficulties of servicemen and women as they try to adapt to civilian life. A new department, even a new focus devoted exclusively to ex-service affairs, could not resolve all the problems experienced by service personnel. It would be more likely to be simply a post office, passing on inquiries to those authorities, such as the War Pensions Agency and local authorities, which exist to deal with such matters directly. Despite what my noble friend said, such a department would risk adding another tier of administration to the present system and would undermine the new initiatives to which we attach considerable importance
Finally, there is a more general point that I should like to make which underpins our entire approach. As the proportion of the total population which served in the Second World War and subsequent campaigns, or indeed did National Service, diminishes—which is a point to which a number of your Lordships referred—and as the size of the services themselves reduces, we must ensure that the Armed Forces do not become isolated from the rest of our people. The history of some other countries contains examples of the problems which may arise if that happens. That is a point to which your Lordships attach importance, as I discovered when answering a recent Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House about the future of the cadet forces. Setting up machinery to deal with veterans' matters separately and exclusively may risk isolating ex-servicemen from the rest of society at a time when we are anxious that serving servicemen and women should be seen as part of national life.
It is for that reason, and the practical ones that I have mentioned, however fleetingly in view of the time constraints, that I firmly believe that welfare provision for the ex-service community should continue to be integrated with that for the nation as a whole and that our existing approach is a more practical and effective one. Of course, as your Lordships have observed, there is always room for improvement. I acknowledge that in this case there is certainly room for improvement. But I am convinced that the fundamental approach that we have adopted is a sensible one. I commend it to your Lordships' House.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 5.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("such larger number of weeks as may be prescribed") and insert ("two years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to introduce an incentive for claimants to try out employment and thus move off benefit by allowing for spells of incapacity for work not separated by a period of more than two years to be treated as one period of incapacity for work. This is a similar amendment to that dealt with at Committee stage on 19th April which was withdrawn.
The Department of Social Security Research Report No. 19 entitled Invalidity Benefit: A survey of recipients by Lonsdale, Lessof and Ferris showed that the increase in the caseload is a result of people spending longer on invalidity benefit rather than an increase in numbers claiming for the first time. Over three-quarters of the long-term invalidity benefit recipients surveyed no longer saw themselves as attached to the labour market. The amendment is directed at long-term recipients and would encourage individuals to try out employment and move off benefit altogether.
Many individuals are wary of moving into employment through the quite understandable fear of not being able to cope with work and consequently having to requalify for long-term benefit, which would cause considerable financial loss. Incapacity benefit, with its longer qualifying period for long-term benefit, is set to compound that problem further and act as an even greater disincentive to those who may have considered employment.
During debate in Standing Committee E in the other place on 17th February this year, the Minister set out some of the drawbacks to linking rules. He said that it was the administrative burdens placed upon employers in terms of extensive record keeping and checking that raised the most concern and that to extend the linking rule from eight weeks to two years would increase the records and the time checked by employers. The Department of Social Security and personnel managers ought to be able to identify a way of keeping employee and benefit records which would make accessing such information more straightforward, particularly with the increasing introduction of computers.
When we considered the amendment on 19th April—and also in the other place—the Government responded by saying that the linking rules play art important part in many areas of the social security system, not just incapacity benefit. The interaction between those areas is very complex. The Government needed to be sure that by changing rules in one area of the system anomalies were not created elsewhere. The Minister of State for Social Security had said in Standing Committee E in another place that in the long term he would look carefully at the whole question of linking rules.
The Government have said that eight weeks is a reasonable length of time in which a person can test his

1521
or her ability to work. I feel that it should be longer. They also say that other means exist to help with attempts at paid work—for example, DWA—therapeutic earnings and voluntary work, both of which we shall come to later. The Minister said that he would look again at the issue most carefully. I have not heard much of the results of that reconsideration of the matter, but I hope to do so from my noble friend this evening.
Eight weeks is not long enough for someone to try out work. In such a short period of time a person would hardly have a chance to take a long-term view. One should bear in mind that six months is the usual length of a probationary period in any job. Because of the rules associated with the existing back to work benefit, disability working allowance, in particular the harsh means test, is unlikely to be of much assistance. It is basically designed for people on low wages, whereas a more generous linking rule would not have such a restriction.
The disability working allowance, which introduced the two-year linking rule, is not a solution. Its introduction in 1992 has had little impact on invalidity benefit numbers. That is borne out by the most recently available statistics, which cover the period from March 1992 to 30th December 1993. In that period there was a total of 32,749 claims for disability working allowance. Of those claims only 5,185 have resulted in awards. The large number of unsuccessful claims could be read as an indication of desire to move off invalidity benefit and into employment.
The linking rule used to be 13 weeks before legislation in the early 1980s reduced the period to eight weeks. I think that we should go back to a longer period. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment is particularly important for those who seek to make their way back to work after recurrent illnesses. One often does not know whether such illnesses will recur again. If they do, one does not know whether they will recur for a short time, enabling one to resume work fairly shortly, or whether they may recur for a much longer period. If every time the illness recurs one has to re-qualify oneself, it is a serious deterrent to going back to work. Putting deterrents in the way of people going back to work is not in the public interest. The central objective of public policy ought to be to make it easier, rather than harder, for people who wish to work to do so.
I have mentioned already this evening a letter that I received from the chair of the North London branch of the ME Association. She was concerned that the new linking rule is likely to deter sufferers from ME from taking the risk of going back to work. The same applies to many varieties of mental illness. Such illnesses recur unpredictably. For example, schizophrenia may recur almost without warning just because on one evening when there was a lot going on the person forgot to take his pills.
I once had a postgraduate pupil who had had the misfortune to suffer from Crohn's disease and had taken her finals, quite unbeknown to herself or anyone else, while at the worst of it. She naturally was able to work
1522
only intermittently. So long as I understood that, there was no problem. The work progressed. It took twice the normal time but it was extremely good work and is now in print. However, had she been facing a regulation which meant that she had to re-qualify herself every time the Crohn's disease recurred—as from time to time it did, sometimes only for a day or two, sometimes for several weeks—she would have been in acute difficulties. It is the kind of provision which will make people in such a position not take the risk of going back to work but stay on benefit, where they feel that they can be safe. That really is not in the public interest.
We have heard talk about saving money. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place. I hope he is aware that I do not in the least object to the need to save money, but I believe that it can be done intelligently, and sometimes humanely. With this provision we have a case where even from the Treasury's point of view humanity is the best policy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. The purpose is clear: it is to try to provide an incentive for claimants to move off incapacity benefit by allowing for spells of incapacity for work not separated by a period of more than two years to be treated as one period of incapacity for work. I understand that that is the case with the disability working allowance. As we have heard, a similar amendment was moved in Committee. I have read Hansard again and, frankly, I do not find the Minster's response very acceptable. As noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have said, the whole idea is to ensure that people are encouraged to risk themselves, so to speak, on the labour market again. That can sometimes take quite a bit of courage, in particular if the individual has been badly incapacitated, possibly as a result of an accident. He or she may not wish to risk starting a job which they fear they might not be able to hold down if they know it means coming off benefit and then having to requalify with consequent financial loss if they find that they cannot manage the job they have taken on.
With its longer qualifying period, the new incapacity benefit in the Bill could act as a disincentive to those who might otherwise risk taking a job. Claimants might also not have sufficient confidence in their ability to cope. There was no Division on the amendment in Committee. We now have the opportunity to debate the issue again. I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about linking rules. I hope that this time round the Minister may be prepared to take a much more sympathetic attitude to the amendment than was taken in Committee. As has already been said, it may ultimately be in everyone's interest and may cost rather less than the Government think it will. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the amendment alters new Section 171B(7) (b), which applies to Section 171B(3) and deals with spells of incapacity in the own-occupation test. The overall effect of the amendment is to make more difficult the position of people who fall into certain prescribed categories and

1523
who have two spells of incapacity separated by more than eight weeks. The manner in which the amendment achieves its effect is rather complicated, so I ask your Lordships to bear with me while I explain.
Section 171B(7), which this amendment seeks to change, allows exceptions to be made to the definition of a spell of incapacity in certain prescribed cases. We envisage this section benefiting those who are undergoing kidney dialysis or chemotherapy, for example. Section 171B(7) (a) allows relaxation of the rule that a period of incapacity must be four or more consecutive days, and Section 171B(7) (b) allows suspension of the rule that spells of incapacity more than eight weeks apart cannot be linked.
This amendment has two main effects, one of which is intended to be beneficial, and one of which is, we assume, unintended and is detrimental. Both relate to the application of the tests of incapacity; neither has any effect upon rates of benefit.
As your Lordships know, the own-occupation test will apply in most cases for the first 196 days of a person's incapacity; during this period the person's capacity for work will be measured in terms of his ability to perform his own job. Thus, if a person is too sick or disabled to do his regular job, he will be entitled to incapacity benefit. Normally, a spell of incapacity is to be defined as four or more consecutive days of incapacity, and two spells of incapacity separated by not more than eight weeks can be counted as one. This means that if the own-occupation test applies to a spell of incapacity it will continue to apply if there is a second spell within eight weeks of the first.
Section 171B(7) (b), which we are discussing, allows the eight-week rule to be suspended in certain cases. We were envisaging the case of a person who was undergoing treatment for the same illness at long-separated intervals, perhaps chemotherapy every 10 weeks. In such a case we would wish to treat the person as continuing in one spell of incapacity even though the actual spells were separated by more than the standard eight weeks. For, clearly, the spells of incapacity are linked in those circumstances.
At the moment we do not intend to make any regulations under this power, as such people are covered elsewhere. But it may be the case that we will wish to deal with other particular special cases in the future.
The desired intention of the amendment must be, we think, solely to extend the period for which the own-occupation test applies. It, in fact, has two effects. I shall come to the second later. In terms of extending the applicability of the own-occupation test, the powers of Section 171B(7) (b) allow regulations to be made which extend the eight-week rule to an indefinite period. This amendment serves to limit the link to two years.
However, we wish to have a flexible power for the prescribed cases. We may wish the linking period to be much shorter or longer than two years. It is hard to imagine a condition which would require treatment at more than two-year intervals, but we may need to provide for such an occurrence. It may be the case that we wish only to extend the eight-week linking rule to 10
1524
weeks in a particular case to fit in with certain conditions. In such circumstances, a fixed two-year link would be unnecessary.
The amendment thus introduces an element of inflexibility into the special extension of linking rules for prescribed cases. We have provided a power to extend the eight-week rule and have left it deliberately flexible and vague. The Bill refers to,
"such larger number of weeks as may be prescribed".
The provision is intended to deal with unusual conditions which will require a flexible response. It would simply not achieve our intention and not be helpful to put in place a fixed two-year rule for these prescribed cases.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she say how many people in the past have benefited from that regulation? We discussed it in Committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was kind enough to write to say that the period could be extended in certain circumstances. However, I was not aware how often people had taken advantage of the provision. If it is part of the Minister's case that the necessary flexibility is already enshrined in law, can she tell us how often it has been used?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have the figure here, but if it is possible to answer the question I shall let the noble Baroness know.
As I said earlier, the amendment also has a detrimental effect which I cannot believe is intended. The Bill at present enables two periods of incapacity separated by less than eight weeks to be treated as one spell of incapacity for the purposes of the own-occupation test. This means that the own-occupation "clock" of 196 days does not restart if a person's second spell of incapacity begins less than eight weeks after the last spell of incapacity. For example, when someone falls sick he has 196 days of incapacity ahead of him where the own-occupation test applies. But people are often sick for a while, recover for a while, and then relapse. Therefore, we have made provision in Section 171B(3) that if a person is sick for 12 days, returns to work for 12 days, and is then off sick again, the two periods of sickness shall count as one. This means that the person in the example, when he falls sick the second time, will be eligible for the own-occupation test for only 184 days. This is because the previous 12 days of incapacity are counted towards his current: spell of incapacity.
However, this provision only applies where the two periods of sickness are separated by less than eight weeks. If the two spells of incapacity are more than eight weeks apart, then the own-occupation "clock" restarts with the second spell of incapacity. To give another example, if a person is sick for 12 days, returns to work for 10 weeks, and is then sick again, the second period of sickness is treated as a new spell of incapacity and he has 196 days ahead of him where the own-occupation test will apply.
The amendment seeks to reverse the position. Its effect would be that two spells of incapacity separated by two years or less would be treated as the same spell. Therefore, our example of the person who was sick for

1525
12 days, returned to work for 18 months and fell sick again, would only be eligible for 184 days of the own-occupation test the second time he fell sick. Our intention is that he should, when he falls sick the second time, if he is eligible for the own-occupation test, have a full 196 days of the test ahead of him. I cannot believe that your Lordships intended this effect. The Government's position, achieved through new Section 171B(3) in the Bill is more generous than the proposed amendment.
The amendment applies only to the prescribed categories in Section 171B(7). I am not sure why. It is misguided for several reasons. First, it attacks the position of those people who fall into certain prescribed categories by limiting their special arrangements to a fixed period. Secondly, it abolishes all flexibility in a power introduced specifically to permit flexibility in certain cases. Thirdly, it applies the all-work test to people whom we wish to be subject to the own-occupation test, and applies the own-occupation test to those who, we believe, should be subject to the all-work test. So I trust that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she has given a comprehensive but extremely complicated reply. Would she be willing to meet me and my advisers between now and Third Reading to discuss the matter? It would be much better if we could discuss it together and possibly combine on an amendment which suited both the Government's and my purposes. At the moment we are trying desperately to do our best for disabled and chronically sick people from opposite ends of the spectrum. If my noble friend would be willing to meet me and my advisers, I might then be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall be delighted to do as my noble friend suggests. I believe that we have already agreed a meeting on another matter, so I am prepared and willing, perhaps with other Members of your Lordships' House, who wish to do so, to discuss this topic also.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the offer, which I very much appreciate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Test of incapacity for work: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth Lord Zouche of Haryngworth moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 33, at end insert:
("(3) Regulations may provide for a person to carry out work as an appointee on a public body or committee and that the person shall not be treated as capable of work by reason of his doing such work.
(4) Where the net amount of any allowance to which a person is entitled by virtue of the work prescribed in subsection (3) above in respect of any week exceeds such amount as may be prescribed, an amount equal to the excess shall be deducted from the amount of any incapacity benefit to which he is entitled in respect of that week, and only the balance remaining (if any) shall be payable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from the one I moved in Committee. It will ensure that regulations are made to enable people to work on a public body or committee without it affecting their entitlement to incapacity benefit. It also provides that any allowance payable to that person is treated in the same way as a councillor's allowance under the provisions of the Bill.
We had a wide-ranging debate in Committee and I do not feel it necessary to go over the same ground again. I was glad that the Minister was able to tell us that his department was continuing to look at the necessary arrangements for implementing my proposal. He said that he would be in a position to announce the outcome at Report and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I believe that my amendment would introduce into the Bill the necessary provision to make regulations on the matter, and I hope that he will accept my amendment.
On behalf of all disabled volunteers, I warmly welcome the Government's announcement that the concession for people on incapacity benefit to carry out up to 16 hours a week of voluntary work without it affecting their entitlement to benefit will be extended to existing claimants on invalidity benefit from 16th May. I thank the Minister. It will mean a great deal to many disabled people.
An outstanding issue for disabled people is acting as a member of a public body. The amendment would allow disabled people to work on public bodies and committees without it affecting their entitlement to benefit. With regard to any remuneration received for that work, it would put disabled people on such bodies in the same position as councillors whose allowances are disregarded for the purposes of incapacity benefit. The changes would be nil cost measures and would ensure that disabled people are able to represent the interests of the disabled on user bodies and committees without affecting their entitlement to benefit.
The Bill already provides for councillors to carry out their duties without affecting their entitlement. During Committee stage in the other place the Minister of State announced that the disregard for members of disability appeal tribunals would be extended to disability living allowance advisory board members. I welcome that, but believe that the disregard should be extended to cover the wealth of committees which benefit from the input of a disabled person. Such committees are wide ranging and incorporate work at local, regional and national levels. They include school governing bodies, community health councils, boards of voluntary organisations, advisory bodies dealing with agriculture, food, the environment and trade and certain public corporations, for example, the BBC and the British Council.
During the Committee stage, the work of a number of public bodies and different types of committees was mentioned as of relevance. Many of the voluntary organisations which support the amendment have disabled representatives on management and executive boards. They believe that it is imperative that members of such boards should be able to continue their work without fear of losing their entitlement to benefit. There

1527
is a very wide range of bodies from local and regional bodies to national institutions which will benefit from such an input. I hope that the Government's proposal will cover the breadth of interests.
The public appointments unit provides information on public bodies. There are over 40,000 public appointments, most of which are part-time, one or two days a month, and unpaid, although travelling and other expenses, such as child care, are paid for. The skills required vary considerably from one appointment to another. A disabled person has a special input as a disabled consumer. But he or she may also have other experience as a result of job experience, such as accountancy and organisational skills. That also should be accounted for in the Government's proposals. We should not wish the regulations to require that it is only the person's experience of disability in which a committee or body is interested. It may be primarily interested in that person's contribution as an educationalist, accountant or whatever. His disability is secondary to that.
The second part of my amendment is important as it clarifies the position of any allowance that a person may receive for his work and how it will affect his incapacity benefit payments. I simply provide that allowances are dealt with in the same way as for councillors. That seems eminently reasonable and in line with government thinking.
I should like to return to a point made by my noble friend the Minister at Committee stage that is causing some concern to the voluntary organisations which support the amendment. He said that:
"claimants will he able to earn up to £42 per week if their doctor considers that the work they undertake is therapeutic".—[Official Report, 19/4/94; col. 159.]
I hope that he does not think that committee work is akin to therapeutic work. It is not in any way connected to such work. Quite apart from the fact that therapeutic work is restricted to 16 hours a week, work on committees means contributing to a decision and policy-making for the public good. A person does not do it for therapeutic purposes and any allowance payable should not be treated in that way. It seems that the right way to deal with it is as provided for councillors, Why should not user representation be treated as of equal importance to councillors' work?
To sum up, representation by disabled people on the whole range of public bodies and committees is acknowledged by everyone to be beneficial in every respect. I know that the Government wish to do all that they can to promote user representation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give the House a positive response to my amendment today. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend's amendment. Disabled people can bring great experience and expertise to many aspects of voluntary arid community work. There are many committees on which they can usefully serve. Indeed, their contribution can considerably enhance the performance of the public bodies or committees on which they sit.
1528
My noble friend the Minister said at Committee stage that councillors' work has a particular importance and that there is a need to ensure that claimants can undertake such duties if they wish to do so. However, not everyone can be a councillor. Surely work on public bodies and committees is of equal importance. I feel that the power to disregard capacity for work as a councillor should be extended to those duties.
It cannot be right for disabled councillors not to have their incapacity for work questioned when disabled people sitting on similar bodies are in danger of losing their benefit. Surely a disabled person should be able to sit on a public body without his entitlement to incapacity benefit being affected. As my noble friend Lord Zouche said, any payment that they receive should be treated in the same way as payment for work as a councillor is treated under the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably upon the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment as I put my name to it. Two of my noble friends have spoken to the amendment with regard to the experience of disabled people as disabled people. But let us not forget that many disabled people had qualifications before they became disabled. They can still bring those qualifications arid the experience obtained through those qualifications to voluntary work and councils, coupled with their additional experience of disability.
There are people who are disabled and unqualified in any other way who bring great experience of disability. There are those who are qualified in other ways—people like myself, a chartered surveyor—who try to bring that experience to help disabled people. But I probably would be able to bring to the work a better experience of surveying and buildings as a surveyor and as a disabled person. There are others who have experience of engineering, accountancy and banking. People can bring to bear all sorts of experiences and skills, coupled with their disability. The fact that someone becomes chronically sick or disabled does not mean that they lose that experience and those skills and we should allow advantage to be taken of them.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, and I thoroughly support it for the reasons given by other speakers. I hope that we hear something encouraging from the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we too wish to be associated with the amendment. Disabled people have a contribution to make from their experience of their disability. We feel that the committees on which they serve will benefit from that experience and the community will be enriched. We hope therefore that the Minister will give us warn words this evening.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, when we discussed voluntary work in Committee I said that my right honourable friend the Minister for Soda] Security and Disabled People was considering whether current arrangements should be extended to other specified

1529
bodies and organisations. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I set out how we propose to take this matter forward.
We recognise the value of voluntary work, both for the individual concerned and for the organisations involved. That is why we propose that incapacity benefit claimants can undertake up to 16 hours per week voluntary work without any effect on their entitlement. I want to stress that undertaking such voluntary work will not raise the question of the claimant's capacity for work. We already have the necessary powers in Section 171D of the Bill to make regulations to ensure that that is the case. We want the provision to apply as widely as possible. We therefore intend to make regulations to ensure that the voluntary work provisions apply to any voluntary work undertaken by any claimant for any public body, committee or advisory group; that is, not just voluntary bodies or charities and not only those groups which consider issues relating to disability. I hope your Lordships will welcome that.
I realise, however, that that does not go as far as the amendment which has been tabled in the name of my noble friend. What I set out applies to voluntary work whereas the amendment seeks to ensure that people could receive remuneration for the work that they undertake. I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The reason is that the amendment would allow those on incapacity benefit to work for more than 16 hours per week in paid employment. I have to say that if someone can do that it raises questions about whether or not they should be on incapacity benefit at all. The benefit is not for people who can accept near full-time paid employment.
I accept that there are special arrangements for local authority councillors and members of disability appeal tribunals and the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. But there are good reasons for those specific exceptions. The arrangements for councillors give claimants the opportunity to play a part in the running of their local affairs if they wish to do so. We need input from disabled people on disability appeal tribunals and the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. I do not think that there are good reasons why we should extend those arrangements to public bodies or committees. Nor do I accept that it would be appropriate to introduce arrangements which would allow people who are in receipt of a benefit designed to support those who are incapable of work to undertake work for which they could receive pay.
I accept that the amendment attempts to deal with the situation by making arrangements for the person's incapacity benefit to be reduced by a proportion of the remuneration. But such an arrangement is still contrary to the intended purpose of incapacity benefit. There would also be considerable administrative problems for the Benefits Agency in attempting to manage such a scheme. It would be very complicated for those doing voluntary work and would not have the effect desired by the amendment.
The proposals that I announced give incapacity benefit recipients the chance to undertake work for a wide variety of public bodies and other advisory or
1530
consultative groups. And, of course, when they serve on public bodies, payments made for expenses will not affect benefit entitlement. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to welcome the proposals that I outlined. I hope that in the main they addressed his concerns and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I can ask him a question. Does he have any idea how much it would cost to allow the amendment to go through?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is not possible to establish what the cost may be. We do not know. But there would be considerable cost for the Benefits Agency in trying to manage the benefit. It would impose a whole new structure of work on officials in the Benefits Agency.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. He has given a lot of ground and it seems a very fair compromise. I found it difficult to take in the details of all that was said, but I was encouraged by and happy about what I did take in. I wonder whether it might be possible to make representations to the Minister with some of the disabled organisations and talk about some of the finer points. My noble friend said that he would be able to deal with them without having to put through the amendment, but such a meeting would perhaps give us an opportunity to do that. If my noble friend is able to do that, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I would happy to meet my noble friend to discuss how we could implement regulations on the proposals that I have announced.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth Lord Zouche of Haryngworth moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 33, at end insert:
("(5) For the purpose of subsection (2) above the prescribed amount of work means the amount that a person is able to perform on a regular basis.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with volunteers and the present restriction of 16 hours put upon the amount of voluntary work they can carry out. We had a wide-ranging debate during the Committee stage on the issue and there was widespread agreement that the 16-hour imposition is seen as arbitrary and unrealistic. I welcome the Minister's undertaking in Committee to consider whether the rules permitting voluntary work should be extended and I hope he will bring us some good news.
The amendment before us is a modification of my previous amendment. It provides that work is defined as an activity which someone is able to perform on a regular basis. By definition, voluntary work can be carried out on an irregular basis. That means that a person with a fluctuating condition, such as multiple sclerosis or arthritis, may be able to work 20 hours one week but none the next. That would render him

1531
unemployable so far as an employer is concerned but would not prevent him from doing voluntary work. I believe that this addresses some of the concerns the Government have expressed about taking away the limit altogether. It would allow people to carry out more than 16 hours' voluntary work in any one week but there would be no question that he or she could carry out paid employment because of the nature of their disability.
The amendment offers a way of making further progress. It seeks to cover the needs of disabled people whom employers will not employ because their capacity to work varies too greatly from week to week. I am aware of a number of disabled persons whom employers have encouraged to retire prematurely because, for example, multiple sclerosis made their work patterns irregular. They have undertaken voluntary work and some, on occasion, have extended to 20 hours in a week. In future, they would lose entitlement to incapacity benefit.
To sum up, the Government contend that there must be some limit to the hours a person works as a volunteer. This amendment concedes that point but covers the urgent need to cater for people with fluctuating working capacity. An irregular working ability is of no interest to an employer. Voluntary work should not be artificially limited to 16 hours a week. In some weeks, disabled persons may be capable of doing more; in other weeks, less. Why should the former work be deemed voluntary while the latter is not? Limiting voluntary work to fewer than 16 hours a week without exception unfairly penalises disabled people on account of their disabilities.
It is my view and that of numerous charitable organisations that voluntary work should not be artificially limited to 16 hours a week. We heard examples during the Committee stage of people carrying out more than 16 hours' voluntary work. It is without doubt an arbitrary limit. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say following his department's consideration. I hope he will find my amendment an acceptable way of approaching this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support this amendment. On the one hand, as I said at Committee stage, voluntary work will for some people be a way back into full-time employment if they have a disability or an incapacity which is likely to improve. It is a good method of getting them used to working again. On the other hand, there are people with a disability or incapacity which is going to get worse; for example, something like multiple sclerosis. It gives those individuals the most terrific boost to their morale to be able to go out and do something useful. It will also benefit their families by giving them a time when they do not have to be on constant call. I can see no real reason why the Government should not accept this amendment. It is an enabling amendment which could be extremely useful to all sorts of members of the community.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if I understand my noble friend's amendment correctly, it is seeking to ensure that the prescribed amount of work means the amount of work that someone can do on a regular basis. In other
1532
words, it seeks to ensure that someone could not be found capable of work if he could work for one week and then have to take four weeks off to recover.
I do not believe that amending Section 171D(2) in this way would have the desired effect. In any event, the amendment is unnecessary. In designing the new tests of incapacity, we are using a definition of work as being more than 16 hours per week. We have made it clear in the guidance to the expert panel that is assisting in the design of the new all work test that, when they consider work, they should consider regular work: that is, work that can be done in a normal workplace, in regular spells and for regular periods.
Work refers to any paid work in the open market for at least 16 hours a week. We are interested in a person's capacity to perform the activities involved in work in the context of ordinary paid employment. This means that a person who could only work in special circumstances such as sheltered or supported employ rent schemes or specially adapted workplaces, a person who could work 16 hours but only in an unusual combination of very short spells, or a person whose symptoms varied so widely that he or she could not work regularly would not be considered capable of work. For example, someone who could work 20 hours one week, but then could not work at all for the next two weeks, would not be considered to be capable of work under the arrangements that we are devising.
The same applies to voluntary and therapeutic work. Just because a person could do more than 16 hours a week for one week does riot mean that we would find him or her capable of work. In the application of the all work test, we would consider their ability to work over a period of time. My noble friend's amendment is unnecessary. I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have given, he will be able to withdraw it. I have given a commitment to my noble friend that I am happy to discuss some of the details of the regulations in connection with an earlier amendment. At that stage I shall be happy to discuss my noble friend's anxieties on this issue also.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his generous attitude towards my amendment. 'What worries me is that, if there is any confusion in this matter, disabled persons will stop doing voluntary work. That is a very real issue. It needs to be very clear cut. I understand what my noble friend the Minister said. He wants to achieve what I want to achieve, but not through the amendment as I have worded it. On that basis, I should very much like to take up his kind offer to have a meeting and discuss the two issues together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 33, at end insert:
("(6) Regulations may provide that in prescribed circumstances a person shall be determined to be capable only of limited work and shall thereupon, subject to prescribed conditions, be treated for the purposes of this Act as if he were incapable of work.

1533
Such conditions shall include a provision that section 30B(1) above shall have effect as if for reference to 1/7th there were substituted a reference to such smaller fraction, having regard to his incapacity, as may be prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is about partial incapacity. I freely admit that it is a probing amendment which I do not seek at this stage to press to a vote.
Recently we have been hearing quite a lot in the press about "fuzzy logic"—that is, that most logical systems are based on "either/or" and "black or white", which is fine for machines but mostly irrelevant to humans who work in the grey area. With the tough medical test, one could say that we are now trying to apply binary logic and a test of "either fit or sick" to a situation where fuzzy logic should apply—that is, that people have a continuum of incapacity to work.
Who might such people be? They include people who can work only part-time because of, say, multiple sclerosis, arthritis or asthma; those with either a deteriorating or only slowly improving illness; people who need to work reduced hours or, as may be the case with some who are mentally handicapped, with reduced productivity. Such people may be able to work in a warehouse stacking shelves, but may not be able to perform at the speed of their more fit colleagues.
We want to keep such chronically sick and disabled people attached to the labour force or, where they have left it, to help them to re-enter it, if only partially; hence the need for a benefit. After all, the reason that invalidity benefit has grown is not because more people are coming on to invalidity benefit, but because fewer are coming off it as they are unable to enter the world of work. That is one of the areas in which a partial incapacity benefit might help. It would top up a partial earnings capacity. If, for example, a person can work for only 50 per cent. of the time or at only 50 per cent. productivity, he or she might have access to 50 per cent. incapacity benefit.
I readily accept that to some degree disability working allowance (DWA) was meant to meet that need. However, as we have already heard, it is clearly and signally failing to do so. As I understand it, only 5,000 of the estimated 50,000 who would take up DWA, as we were told when the legislation went through the House a couple of years ago, have actually taken it up. As we heard earlier on an exchange about the linking rule, some 27,000 people have claimed it in the hope of re-entering the labour market but have been disqualified. What we do not know is how many of those people who claimed but were disqualified then failed to enter work as a result when they might otherwise have done so.
Why should that be? We clearly need a lot more research than is published at the moment on why DWA is failing to work. It was a good intention, supported by noble Lords of all parties, but it is a structurally complex benefit. It is also very heavily means-tested both as far as the individual and families are concerned. It has a £3,000 capital rule, for example, with a very severe taper. In addition, it is not relevant where there is a working partner. If a disabled man had a wife in part-time work, it would almost certainly not be worth his while seeking part-time work as a disabled person
1534
because he would lose his benefit but would not be eligible for DWA and there would be no compensating benefit.
I recognise that there is a need to examine the whole array of questions associated with partial incapacity. I refer, for example, to what level of benefit should be associated with it, the likely cost in savings, and to whether it should be related to hours worked as opposed to productivity offered, as now happens with some of the Remploy schemes. I was lucky enough to visit such a scheme a couple of weeks ago where Remploy negotiated a relationship to productivity with the employer on an in-house basis. That might be a possible way forward. There are certainly well established precedents.
The amendment goes no further than giving the Secretary of State a flexible power to make regulations. It is a probing amendment that accepts that we need to offer a bridge back into work for people with a continuing disability. DWA has failed to deliver. Either DWA needs amendment, or we need a different sort of benefit. It is that issue that the amendment seeks to pursue. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment is in the real world, and we on these Benches are happy to support it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, move her one and only amendment today. I was becoming worried in case the Opposition had, as they have done with policy-making which they have contracted out to the Social Justice Commission, contracted out the moving of amendments to my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount gave way. I am sorry that he failed to recognise that there are serious concerns about the Bill all around the House on a non-party basis. I am sorry that the Minister should find this an opportunity to make a jibe.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as my noble friend mentioned me, I am not taking instructions from the Labour Party. I am a Conservative. I do not always agree with the Government. I doubt whether all Conservatives always agree with the Government. I speak in this House for myself, as does every other Member of the House. I am sure that my noble friend will bear in mind that we all speak and vote on our personal honour.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course my noble friend is right if one is on the Back Benches, but that is not necessarily so if one is on the Front Bench. Anyway, I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness, as I say, move the amendment, as she has just done, and I intend to give her a reply and address her concerns on the issue.
The award of incapacity benefit is to be based upon a seven day week rather than the present six day week in order to simplify arrangements. That will mean that illness or spells of incapacity will be based on days so that one week's benefit covers one week's need. The

1535
measure proposed, in my view would add complexity to the provisions if we begin to award benefit on the basis of fractions of days, as the amendment suggests.
I think it is perhaps useful first to ask what is meant by "capable of limited work". Does that mean that a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced? If that is the case, then that person could be entitled to incapacity benefit. The threshold for benefit will be set at a point where a person's capacity for work is substantially reduced, not where any work is impossible. Since a person does not have to be completely incapable of all work to receive incapacity benefit, then it could be considered a partial capacity benefit. That is supported by the recognition that people should be allowed to perform voluntary or therapeutic work whilst in receipt of incapacity benefit.
In addition, we have made it clear that, in defining "work", we mean at least 16 hours' paid work which a person can do in a normal workplace, in regular spells and for a regular period. So someone who could work in a specially adapted work place only, or in short irregular spells, or who could work one week and was then incapable for the next two weeks, would not be found capable of work under the arrangements that we are devising for incapacity benefit. It may be, therefore that in the arrangements for incapacity benefit we are already meeting some of the concerns about partial incapacity. But I recognise the depth of those feelings and I share noble Lords' interests in the subject.
One of the purposes of a partial incapacity benefit is to help people get back to full-time work. We already have three provisions within the existing social security system designed to ease the transition into work. The first is the therapeutic work provision. The opportunity to work, where that is judged therapeutic, will help those people to prepare for a return to full-time work. The voluntary work arrangements will enable people to work for up to 16 hours a week on a voluntary basis without affecting their entitlement to benefits. That will not only benefit the individuals and organisations concerned, it can help people become used to a working environment and give them experience of the rhythms of a working week.
If partially "capable of limited work" means that a person is capable of work but has a disability that puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job then they could claim Disability Working Allowance. DWA tops up earnings of people with an illness or disability who may have limited earnings capacity. This could be because a person can work only part-time or is able to undertake only a limited range of work, or for some other reason. I believe that DWA offers a valuable opportunity for some disabled people to return to work if they are only partially incapacitated. Hence, DWA could also be considered a partial capacity benefit.
We have already announced two significant enhancements to DWA—the National Health Service charges provision and childcare costs exemption. And I shall be making a further announcement on DWA when we come to Amendment No. 28. DWA is unique in Europe and provides an important bridge back into work.
1536
I hope that in the light of these assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, in spite of the fact that she could not resist rising to my tiny tease.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, goodness me—the noble Viscount was cracking a joke and we did not notice!
Before the noble Viscount sits down, will he give a further explanation of DWA? I accept the good intentions behind it, but why has it so signally failed to meet its objectives? I understand that of the estimated 50,000 people who were expected to take it up only 5,000 have done so, yet some 20,000 others have claimed it but have failed and presumably have not re-entered work.
I am not sure that we shall explore Amendment No. 28. For that reason, it would be helpful if the Minister could enlarge on his reply and tell us why DWA has failed to meet the need that we all accept exists. It is a bridging benefit, a partial benefit, to help people into work. Will the Minister expand on his answer and say why DWA is so signal a failure,. despite good will around this House for it? What amendments does he have in mind which may rule this amendment irrelevant, which is what one would like to see?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that I would address further points when we come to the later amendment. It would be best if I answered all those points when I deal with Amendment No. 28
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we had not intended to move that amendment. However, as the Minister has been unable to reply, I shall, with the permission of the House, withdraw this amendment. I shall pursue the points later, as that seems to be more convenient to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 48, at end insert:
("Incapacity for work: therapeutic work to be disregarded.
171FF.—(1) In determining whether a person is capable or incapable of work, there shall be disregarded any work of a prescribed therapeutic nature which that person has undertaken on the recommendation of a qualified medical practitioner.
(2) Regulations may provide that any remuneration for the prescribed work is subject to a prescribed permitted earnings limit.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had thought that my noble friend Lord Swinfen would move this amendment too. However, as the Deputy Speaker has called me I shall do my best and give my noble friend a break.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring work of a therapeutic nature into the same category as that undertaken as a councillor. It removes the hours per week limits. The therapeutic earnings system is of great benefit to disabled people. It assists many back into full-time work. I acknowledge, however, that there must be some limit to the amount of therapeutic work that a person can do while he is considered incapable of work. There must be some measure of control.
However, the proposals to limit therapeutic work in respect of earnings and hours is a retrograde step. The proposal to limit the allowable time to 16 hours per week takes no account of people who by the very nature of their disability have only a varying capacity to work; some weeks that is in excess of 16 hours, some weeks it is considerably less. Some people would become entitled to the disability working allowance, but the ability to work more than 16 hours on an occasional basis is of little interest to most employers. Therefore, the DWA is not an option for many who now benefit from the therapeutic earnings limit.
The Association of Disabled Professionals has told us of several members who have been forced to retire early from their main occupation owing to the onset of multiple sclerosis and other disabilities that have made their work patterns irregular. They have been able to find alternative work, possibly lower paid work. Sometimes, but not always, they are able to work in excess of 20 hours a week. In future, those people will lose the entitlement to incapacity benefit. That must surely be unfair. The amendment covers the need to cater for such people and is a reasonable way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Wise. There has been a muddle between us. I thought that he would be moving the amendment and he obviously thought that I was going to move it. Perhaps that will demonstrate to our mutual noble friend the Minister that those who care for disabled people come from all sides of the Chamber although, it would appear, not from the government Front Bench. That is certainly the impression that one receives. It may be a misleading impression. However, for those of us on all sides of the Chamber who are trying to help disabled people, year in and year out we seem to come up against a massive great dam that holds back a flood of goodwill. The dam seems to me to be down on the Front Bench in front of me.
The Association of Disabled Professionals has several members whose employers encouraged them to retire prematurely from their main occupation because multiple sclerosis made their work patterns irregular. They have found sympathetic alternative employers and have undertaken lower-paid work which, on some occasions, has exceeded 20 hours per week. In future, those people will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit. Others, notably mentally handicapped people, are also affected.
In Committee on 21st April, my noble friend Lord Astor explained:
"We are aware that some groups of people receiving incapacity benefit who undertake rehabilitative work for more than 16 hours receive little or no remuneration for that work".
He went on:
"I refer in particular to people who are in-patients in hospitals and other similar institutions who undertake work under medical supervision as part of their treatment. For those people, claiming disability working allowance would almost certainly leave them worse off financially".
He added:
"We are very concerned that such people are not adversely affected by the 16 hours limit. Indeed, we are looking carefully at ways of protecting their position. However, there is no need to
1538
amend the Bill to achieve that. If special provisions are required, they can be included in regulations made under Section 171D(1)".
He went on:
"I shall consider carefully what has been said in the debate about therapeutic work. If we consider that changes are necessary and are required, I shall announce them during the course of the Bill. I shall consider the issue carefully". —[Official Report, 21/4/94; cols. 330–331.]
It is essential not to limit therapeutic work by both earnings and hours. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is a reasonable way forward. I shall be interested to hear what further consideration the Minister has given to the issue. I shall be interested to see whether any progress has been made; whether he is as enlightened as he would like us to think; and whether he is in fact moving forward.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. With it we return to the issue of therapeutic work discussed in Committee. We did not press the amendments to a Division then. That was because the Minister seemed to respond with a certain amount of sympathy. At that time, other noble Lords and I said that the therapeutic earnings system was of great value to disabled people. It actively assists them back to full-time work which surely must be the desired objective.
As I said in Committee, information received from the Association of Disabled Professionals—an organisation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which includes people who really wish to maintain their skills as far as is possible—indicates that it has members who may be too disabled for ordinary employment but who can and do work regularly, sometimes for more than 16 hours per week and at other times, of course, for much less. I argued then that there seemed to be no reason to put limits on the number of hours worked or the amounts earned. The essential point was whether the work was considered by the doctor concerned as being of therapeutic value.
At the time, the Minister opposed the amendment, especially with reference to the earnings limit. However, some noble Lords suggested that there should be a sliding scale of permitted remuneration. But that also did not seem to find favour with the Minister. However, as has already been said, the Minister indicated that he had some sympathy with the position of a specific group of claimants who would be adversely affected by the 16-hour limit on therapeutic work and undertook to look carefully at the situation.
I am pleased to say—and I must thank him for this —that I have received a letter from the Minister in which he says:
"I am writing to you now to tell you that we propose that the 16 hours limit is not applied to Incapacity Benefit claimants who are patients in or of a hospital or similar institution and who undertake therapeutic work under medical supervision as part of their treatment. We do not need to amend the Bill to achieve this position, as we already have the necessary powers to effect this position through regulations".
That response partly meets the case that we advanced in Committee, although by no means completely. In the meantime, the present amendment takes cognisance of the Minister's comment on earnings. The second paragraph says:

1539
"Regulations may provide that any remuneration for the prescribed work is subject to a prescribed permitted earnings limit".
I thank the Minister for the letter which clearly indicates that the promise given in Committee has, to some extent, been carried forward. However, I should like to know what the Minister thinks about the rest of the amendment, because his response does not completely cover what I and other noble Lords had in mind.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has given us some good news. I hope that we receive even better news from the Minister.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may be tempted to say that the amendment is unnecessary. However, before he succumbs to that temptation, perhaps I may bring to his attention a letter from the head of a local citizens advice bureau concerning a volunteer. That volunteer, who was recovering from a very serious illness, was in receipt of invalidity benefit and his doctor had recommended therapeutic work. The bureau followed the association guidance and advised him to obtain written confirmation from his doctor that voluntary work with the bureau for a few hours a week would be therapeutic. The volunteer then contacted the local office of the DSS by telephone. He was told that he would be required to see an adjudication officer but that, in any event, if he was fit for voluntary work he was fit to work properly.
Naturally, that situation produced a series of protests to which a suitable response was given. However, the volunteer was already sufficiently alarmed and discouraged, and too frightened of losing benefit, to be willing to proceed further. The author of the letter says:
"I feel particularly strongly about this as, over the last two years, three members of our voluntary staff who initially joined us whilst in receipt of invalidity benefit (2 worked for therapeutic reasons) ultimately regained their health and confidence and have obtained full time paid employment".
That must be what we are all looking for. I am sure the Minister will say that the situation was wholly exceptional; that it was entirely unauthorised; and, indeed, that suitable action was probably taken. Of course, even before the Minister says so, I accept that that is not in any way a result of government policy. That is not what was intended.
However, the situation is not quite as unusual as one would like to think. I do not hold the Minister responsible for it, but it is part of the human condition so one should expect it. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to accept that whenever any policy—good, bad or indifferent—is put in place, there is always someone among those who have to enforce it who takes it forward with rather more literalness and enthusiasm than is required. That type of Jack-in-office, or I suppose nowadays one should also add, if I may so put it, "Jill-in-office", is a very recognised character capable of causing a great deal of trouble who could perhaps be rather better controlled with this amendment in place, which seems to me a good reason for supporting it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, new Section 171D in the Bill provides the powers to make regulations to ensure that a person shall not be treated as capable of work by reason only of his doing work as may be prescribed. It also provides powers to establish an earnings limit for such work. We intend to use these powers to prescribe the conditions in which therapeutic: work can be undertaken. I hope that perhaps even the noble Earl will agree that this amendment simply replicates the powers already available in the Bill.
When we discussed the issues relating to therapeutic work during the Committee stage of the Bill, I explained that we were aware that the application of a limit of 16 hours per week to therapeutic work could disadvantage certain people. In particular such a limit would impact upon people in hospital or similar institutions who undertake work under medical supervision as part of their treatment. Such work is often undertaken for mote than 16 hours per week and the people involved receive a small amount of remuneration, usually well below the earnings limit of £43. The imposition of the 16 hours rule would disadvantage these people and I said that I would consider the matter further.
I can tell your Lordships that we have decided that the 16 hours limit will not be applied to those people who undertake therapeutic work while in a hospital or similar institution where the work is under medical supervision. This will ensure that it will not be necessary to introduce any changes to the current arrangements for therapeutic work for these people.
Perhaps I could answer a point made by the noble Earl. I think he was talking about voluntary work, not therapeutic work. From 16th May, with the introduction of voluntary work regulations, I hope that the sort of thing he described will not happen.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should say as a small point of clarification that it was therapeutic work.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point. I hope with the concession that I have announced today on therapeutic work my noble friend will see that the Government have indeed thought about this matter and have moved their position. In the light of this announcement, I hope that my noble friend Lord Wise will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that detailed response. It is encouraging, to think that people doing therapeutic work who are in hospital at that time and are doing therapeutic work under medical supervision will be incorporated within the ambit of the Bill. I am rather disappointed that it is not possible for that to be extended to other people outside hospital who are doing therapeutic work. But nevertheless at this stage I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 14, line 42, leave out from ("tribunal") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("to include one member with medical qualifications").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in identical terms with the one which I moved in Committee. At that stage the efforts of the noble Viscount and myself to communicate with each other may best be described as cordial but abortive. The simplest plan appears to be to pretend that it never happened and begin again. But we did each agree to read what the other had said. I fulfilled my part of the bargain and I know that the noble Viscount fulfilled his because he has been kind enough to send me quite a long and helpful letter. He still does not agree with me but undoubtedly it has carried the debate a stage forward.
May I, for your Lordships' information, seek to indicate briefly how we have narrowed the issue? The proposal in the Bill is that appeals from adjudications under this legislation shall be to a social security appeal tribunal and that that tribunal shall have available one or more medical assessors. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the medical assessors with a medical member of the tribunal. At Committee stage the noble Viscount addressed his argument to a suggestion that there should be a medical member in addition to the medical assessors, a suggestion which was not in the amendment and which I never made. That misunderstanding has now been resolved.
Secondly, the noble Viscount argued that a medical appeal tribunal would not be an appropriate tribunal to hear the appeal. I never suggested that it would be. That is not an issue.
I confirm, and I confess to thinking, that a disablement appeal tribunal may be preferable for this purpose to a social security appeal tribunal precisely because it already includes a medical member and has experience in addressing medical issues. In his letter the noble Viscount says that that has been ruled out because the department is anxious to preserve the distinction between disability and incapacity. I find that a little puzzling. There are conceptual difficulties in this idea of incapacity as we find it in the Bill, based on a number of physical movements which someone is unable to make and then scoring the resultant assessment as though one were measuring someone's IQ. That has been the subject of a previous debate in your Lordships' House today. It seems to me to fail to address the real world where the relevance of the physical movement which a person can make depends upon whether that person's skills and experience are as a professor of astrophysics or a circus acrobat and where what matters is competitiveness in the actual labour market in which the claimant is competing.
I understand the distinction which the Government are trying to make, and I do not believe that it is conceptually beyond a disablement appeal tribunal to understand. Whichever tribunal is chosen it will need to address medical questions. That is what the provision we are discussing is about. A disablement appeal tribunal may have a greater insight into the problems of the disabled than a social security appeal tribunal. Therefore, I believe that a disablement appeal tribunal would be a better tribunal for the purpose. But, alas, I understand that that is ruled out, so I shall not pursue that further today.
Perhaps I may add, on a note of sadness, that if provision were made to provide the parties with good and clear medical reports which would be understood by a lay tribunal the whole issue which we are discussing may not have been necessary. However, I tried to explore that issue in Committee without success, and I must assume that that will not be forthcoming.
Therefore, we have narrowed the matter down to one issue. If those possibilities are ruled out, the question is whether it is more satisfactory for an SSAT to sit with one or more medical assessors or to include a doctor as one of the three members of the tribunal. That is the issue in this debate. The amendment expresses the preference of the Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair—and it is right that I should declare that interest, as I did in Committee. I do not believe that it is a secret from the noble Viscount, and I am authorised to say that that preference is shared by His Honour Judge Thorpe, the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, and his colleagues.
The reason can be expressed quite shortly. The position of an assessor is ambiguous. In this context his function is either to give a medical opinion on such medical questions as arise or to assess and interpret such medical evidence as has been presented to the tribunal. That gives rise to a problem both of perception and of genuine justice.
In our last debate I did not know whether the advice which the assessor is to give was to be given secretly or openly. There are very clear reasons why it should not be given secretly. I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount for confirming in his letter that it will be given openly. But there is no point in providing that it shall be given openly unless it can be challenged. There is nothing more calculated to make an appellant question the fairness of the proceedings than to allow him to hear what the assessor says but to shut him up if he attempts to question or challenge it. So the assessor will really be in the position of a witness, albeit a witness called by the tribunal. But if he is to be an expert witness, would it not be better to call him that and to treat him as such rather than for him to be a kind of privileged witness whose evidence carries some special built-in authority? It is likely that his advice will be accepted by the tribunal, otherwise there is no point in making his expertise available to it. If it is accepted, it may be on a decisive question. The appeal in effect will have been decided by someone who is not the authority charged by Parliament with deciding it.
In that context, an assessor is neither one thing nor the other: he is neither a witness, nor does he share the responsibility of the tribunal. That is why, except in very specialised jurisdictions, courts and tribunals are not at ease with assessors.
The second reason for the amendment is a matter of perception. Those who appear before these tribunals will not normally be teachers of jurisprudence. We know from the research of Professor Hazel Genn that those who use tribunals are sometimes far from clear what the issues are, what the tribunal is doing, who its members are, and what is their relationship to the department against whom they are appealing. If the appellants are to have confidence in the system, if they

1543
are to feel that they have had a fair hearing, it is important to address their bewilderment. If the doctor is an assessor, appellants will find it difficult to appreciate who the doctor is and what he is doing there. They may well perceive him as deciding the issue. As I said a moment ago, he may well in fact be doing so if the tribunal avails itself of his expertise. That would totally defeat both the perception and the reality of a collegiate three member tribunal.
There is one final, pragmatic reason. Fixing a sitting date for a tribunal is not an easy undertaking. It has to be a date when the chairman is free, when the other members can attend, and when the parties and their representatives are available. If to all that one has to accommodate one or more assessors who are likely to be busy general practitioners, that will make an additional difficulty in finding dates. There will be days when the rooms and resources are available, but it is not possible to fix enough hearings to fill a list. There will then be an understandable criticism that the hearing rooms are empty while people are waiting to have their appeals heard. If the number of those to be accommodated is kept to a minimum by having the doctor as a member of the tribunal, that problem will be greatly simplified.
Noble Lords may ask why the department is flying in the face of all that. The reason why it rejects the option, as understand it from the noble Viscount's letter, is the fear that the doctor, as a member of the tribunal, will dominate the chairman and other members. I have visited many tribunals, some of them including doctors as members. I say only that it has not been my experience. Doctors do not try to dominate their colleagues and would not get very far if they tried. It does not occur with disablement appeal tribunals. A tribunal of three members is a collegiate body in a way that could not be true of a body consisting of tribunal members and assessors. Indeed, if assessors are to be apart from the tribunal, which must be the intention, it ought not to be true.
There remains one final matter. We have heard it said earlier in our debate today that it would be wrong not to consider the cost. In our earlier debate I ventured to suggest that the department may be concerned to save expense. The noble Viscount has assured me both in the debate and in his letter that nothing is further from the Government's mind. I say at once that I accept that. Indeed, I believe the noble Viscount is strategically wise, if I may say so, to take that position because I believe that my proposal would be likely to represent a saving, as I endeavoured to argue in Committee. But I cannot be sure because the Government have not revealed what they propose should be the basis of the doctors' remuneration. On the Government's assurance that that is not their motivation, it is not in issue between us and I do not propose to pursue it. I am content to rely on the reasons of justice and confidence which I have already given. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, argued in Committee that the reasoning for the provision for appeal tribunals
1544
to have access to medical expertise by means of a medical assessor was unclear. As he said, I wrote to him and I shall attempt to clarify the position further.
Our intention is that all appeals against decisions, made by an adjudication officer with regard to incapacity benefit shall be presented to a social security appeal tribunal. These tribunals comprise a legally qualified chairman who guides the proceedings and advises on the law and two lay members. This arrangement reflects the existing provision in relation to invalidity and sickness benefits.
We consider that the most sensitive appeals with regard to incapacity benefit will be those which concern a dispute about the limiting effects of a medical condition on the claimant's capacity for work. In such cases the dispute will be between the claimant and the departmental doctor about the severity of the effects of the claimant's medical condition. The adjudication officer will have considered the views of the departmental doctor and determined that benefit should not be awarded.
In these cases we think that the tribunal should have access to independent medical advice. Of course the members of the tribunal will weigh and assess the evidence. They are trained and expert in this and will make the decision. However, to assist and clarify technical medical questions a medical assessor will sit with the tribunal. Existing legislation provides for the appointment of such medical assessors at the tribunal chairman's discretion. Our proposal will improve the current situation in that it will require tribunals to appoint medical assessors in the cases that. I have described.
When we were considering the adjudication of incapacity benefit, we examined whether there should. be a medically qualified member on the appeal tribunal. We concluded that there should not. The tribunal members will have equal status and, therefore, no one member will bear a greater responsibility when weighing the evidence.
The intention is that the tribunal will assess all the evidence presented. This will be that provided by the claimant and/or his representative, his GP or hospital doctor and a departmental doctor. The tribunal will reach a decision on that evidence on whether the claimant is incapable of 'work. Neither the tribunal members nor the medical assessor have powers to examine the claimant. Indeed, this is the situation that applies when social security appeal tribunals determine whether a person is incapable of work for the purposes of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. The assessor will give advice to the tribunal about the medical evidence that has been presented. He will not give an opinion on capacity for work or take any part in the tribunal's decision on capacity for work.
Social security appeal tribunals are, expert in assessing evidence and determining benefit entitlement. Their role in incapacity benefit appeals, as in other appeals, will be to weigh the evidence before them and reach a decision. When the level of the claimant's incapacity is in dispute, a medical assessor will sit with the tribunal to comment on and explain the medical evidence submitted. The medical assessor will not give

1545
an opinion on capacity for work. Neither will he make decisions on entitlement. He will not even offer an opinion on capacity for work. The medical assessor is present to assist the tribunal in cases where there is a conflict of evidence as to the degree of the claimant's level of incapacity. He will do this by explaining and clarifying the medical evidence. The chairman will explain the role of the assessor to the claimant.
The reason why we propose to have assessors in certain cases is to reassure the claimant that the independent tribunal has access to independent medical evidence. We do not consider that it is necessary to have medical expertise available in all appeals on claims for incapacity benefit. In those appeals where it is necessary, I believe that that advice is better provided by an independent medical adviser.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on why we believe that this is a better solution rather than, as he suggested, having someone as a member of the tribunal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, on this occasion I think I understood what the noble Viscount said. I confess that I do not find it persuasive. I think that I already knew the intention of the Government. I am certain that I already knew the function of an assessor. But nothing which the noble Viscount said about the functions of the assessor seems to me to be beyond the capacity of a medical member of the tribunal.
The objection to including a medical member on the tribunal —if I understood what the Viscount said a moment ago—was precisely what I ventured to say that it was in paraphrasing his letter: a fear that the medical member will dominate the other two members on the tribunal. I can only say that that is not the experience of a number of people who are very experienced in that kind of work. I do not believe that he will dominate. The suggestion is that the assessor is there simply to give assurance to appellants. I should have thought that there would be clearer assurance if there were a medical member of the tribunal and appellants could understand why he was there and what he was doing.
I feel that we are now in some danger of traversing the same ground again. I have a feeling that I shall not persuade the noble Viscount tonight. I am not sure whether I shall ever persuade him. But this Bill will not be the first when we have endeavoured to warn the Government that something may happen and two years later they have said, "Well, bless us, that has happened after all and we shall have to reverse it." I can do no more this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Severe disablement allowance]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert ("or training of such other description as may be prescribed").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Disability working allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 17, line 28, at end—
("() In subsection 2(a) for "56" substitute "156".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended not to move this amendment because only today I received a letter from the Minister which is helpful in parts. I thought that it would be better to take advice on the letter and perhaps come back to the matter at Third Reading. However, an hour ago I saw on the tapes that the Minister had announced certain changes at the Report stage of the Bill. So I had better move the amendment to enable him to say so.
Perhaps I may briefly explain that the amendment aims to improve the take-up of DWA by extending the linking rule to ensure that, if a DWA claimant has been in receipt of a qualified benefit in the past six months instead of the present period of eight weeks, he will be eligible for DWA. It will give access to DWA to a new group of claimants—for example, those who have recently become incapable of work or who may be capable of work but are still disadvantaged in the workplace as a result of their disability. I have explained that briefly because I know that the Minister wishes to deal with it in his reply on the basis of the letter that he sent to me.
I first wrote to the Minister on 3rd May and asked him to comment on certain matters affecting DWA—the linking rule, the disincentive effect of the taper, the possibility of the introduction of a disabled child's premium, an increase in the applicable amount for single people and couples and an increase in the maximum amount of DWA. Those were the requests put to the Minister.
There is another matter on which he might be kind enough to comment. I am advised that his right honourable friends Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Peter Lilley have indicated in correspondence to the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance and the Disability Benefits Consortium that they will be pleased to see ideas for a partial incapacity scheme. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government would welcome such a submission and whether it would be in time to introduce a provision into the Bill at Third Reading
I do not propose to go into the content of the Minister's letter. I understand that he will speak to it when he replies to the amendment. I hope that, by moving the amendment, I have given him a chance to say what is already on the tapes. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether the announcement on the tape is early or I am standing up late. In either event it is proper that one should announce these changes in your Lordships' House and I apologise that they have been announced elsewhere first. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, understands the difficulty of timings.
We remain committed to the success of DWA and have commissioned work from the Policy Studies Institute which will contribute to the evaluation of the benefit. We await the outcome of the evaluation with

1547
interest. It would be premature to consider more far-reaching changes about qualifying periods until we can analyse the information that will come out of the evaluation. The final evaluation will be completed by October 1996. We will look at these issues once such analysis has been properly carried out. There is, therefore, ample time for those who wish to make representations to the department to do so.
In the interim, I should like to announce three measures that will make DWA more generous and will ensure that more potential DWA recipients are better off in work. These changes will take effect from April 1995, and I hope improve the take-up of the benefit. DWA benefit rates are based on rates in other benefits. The couples' and lone-parents' rate is the family credit adult credit level margin of £44.30 plus the single person's disability premium in income support of £19.45. That rate of £63.75 is already more generous than family credit. However, we have received criticism about its level.
My first proposal is to increase the allowance for lone parents and couples whether or not they have children to an amount equivalent to the family credit rate of £44.30 plus the income support disability premium for couples of £27.80 rather than the single person's disability premium of £19.45. That would mean an extra £8.35 a week in people's pockets, tapered if they receive housing benefit or council tax benefit. Another way to ensure that more potential. DWA recipients are better off in work is to make the benefit more generous by raising the threshold at which the income taper starts to apply. That would raise the point at which they float off DWA rather than increasing the maximum allowance payable.
Some members of the disability lobby expressed concern that although most single recipients are better-off with DWA, the benefit runs out when customers' earnings are only just over £100 a week. My second proposal, therefore, is to re-examine the level at which single people float off the benefit. At the moment the threshold for single people is set at 60 per cent. of the couple's threshold. My proposal is to increase that to 75 per cent. of the couple's threshold. This means that the point at which the taper would begin to apply for single people would be raised from £43.00 to £53.75. That measure would also have the effect of raising the point at which single people float off the benefit from just over £108 to £118. It will make the benefit more attractive for single customers and will enable more people to use DWA to enter or re-enter the labour market. We know that a number of potential DWA customers would be worse off using DWA because their out-of-work benefit income support includes a premium for a disabled child.
My third proposal is to introduce a disabled child's premium in DWA. The value of giving this premium in DWA is that it would close off one way in which customers may end up worse off. The qualifying conditions for the DWA premium would be the same as those in income support. As the operation of the disabled child's premium in income support is straightforward we see no problem introducing this premium in DWA and it would represent a significant improvement for some potential DWA recipients.
1548
Those three proposals will improve DWA by providing better incentives for customers to move into work and use the benefit. Current recipients will also benefit from the changes. The changes will make a considerable improvement to the benefit. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, in the light of the announcement I have made today and pending the results of the evaluation of the benefit.
DWA is a top-up to earnings. It to meet the intention that people will be better off in work. The benefit must be related to both means and needs. That invariably makes it complicated. The structure of the benefit is closely based on family credit where over 70 per cent. of the cash available is being taken up. The introduction of the disability working allowance was a radical new initiative taken by the Government in. response to the OPCS surveys of disabled people and longstanding suggestions by disability organisations for partial capacity benefit. It promotes independence and integration by providing a new opportunity for some disabled people to work if they wish to do so even if they have limited earning capacity. It tops up the earnings of some disabled people in low-paid work.
We always said that the caseload will take time to build up. New benefits can be expected to take a period of years to become established. Caseload is dependent on whether people choose to move into work. There is no compulsion. As I have said, we are already committed to evaluating disability working allowance. We have commissioned research from the PSI and that will help to support the evaluation. We will consider options for change sooner if a case is made. For example, from April 1995 disability working allowance recipients with savings of £8,000 or less will automatically qualify for free prescriptions and free dental treatment. This proposal brings disability working allowance recipients into line with those on income support and family credit. We remain convinced that disability working allowance fills the gap in social security. It provides an important opportunity for some disabled people to work if that is what they want to do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, we obviously welcome the statement that has been made tonight. But can he tell us, first, how much he expects the cost to be:, and secondly, what effect it will have on take-up of DWA?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is probably an impossible question to answer because we do not know what the effect on the numbers will be. We suspect that more people will take it up, but to make any estimate would be a guess and it would be wrong to do so. It certainly should improve take-up.
Earl Russell: My Lords, would I be right in taking it that the Minister has spoken early in order to assist the House and therefore it is in order for me to speak now?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Earl Russell: My Lords., in that case I should like very warmly to welcome what the Minister has announced. These are generous and very welcome concessions. I am particularly pleased by what he said

1549
about the child premium. That is very welcome indeed. But what pleased me most about the Minister's announcement was the use of the words "in the interim". I take it that means clearly that this is not his last word on DWA. That was the main assurance I wanted before welcoming it warmly, because, good though it is and generous though it is, it does not meet two particular difficulties about DWA. One is the linking rule which is the subject of this amendment, on which I think we have said enough today. The other is the passporting system. The passporting of benefits, of one benefit on another, always seems to lead to trouble. It comes up every time we discuss the low take-up of family credit. It comes up with IVB and the social fund. And I fear it may come up with the new and very welcome child care disregard which is passported on family credit. So I hope that this will not in any way preclude further thinking about that.
I appreciate what the Minister said about this announcement appearing on the ticker tape before we heard it in the House. Of course I understand that these things happen; of course I understand the difficulties. I do think, though, that I should put on record that it is somewhat unfortunate. Announcements are supposed to be made first to the relevant House. The amount of press attention which has been given to both Houses of Parliament has dropped drastically in the past five years. That is a real blow to the importance of Parliament in the government and politics of this country. The making of announcements outside the House instead of inside the House can only add to that. The Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme last week, which had many interesting things to say about the decline of Parliament in this country, might well have mentioned this. So, though of course I accept the Minister's apology and of course I understand how this happened, I hope very much that it will not happen again.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think I can help the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to why the announcement appeared on the tapes when it did. There was an earlier announcement about a defeat of the Government in this House today on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill and I think it is called news management to neutralise the effect. It makes a change for a department of this Government to have some good news to bring out to counter all the bad news that seems to be happening to them all the time. However, we welcome this. As I said, I moved the amendment, but I wonder what would have happened if I had not. The Minister could hardly have moved it in my place if I had not moved it. Therefore, I believe that he owes me a very hearty vote of thanks for getting into Hansard what was already on the tapes.
We welcome the announcement by the Government. We shall have to study it and take advice. We may wish to come back to the point in order to tidy up loose ends, as it were, at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, the amendment is being withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 18, line 4, after ("1990") insert ("or training of such other description as may be prescribed").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 20, line 30, after ("pension)") insert:

("(a) in paragraph (a) for "invalidity" substitute "incapacity"; and

(b)").

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 36 to 42. There is a mistake in the groupings list. Amendment No. 35 should be grouped with these amendments with Amendment No. 34 taken separately. I apologise for that mistake.
These 10 amendments are of a technical nature. They cover both minor drafting corrections and consequential changes that have not yet been dealt with. Perhaps I may explain briefly their effect. Amendment No. 30 replaces an outstanding reference to "invalidity" with "incapacity" in Section 25(6) (a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. This is a reference to the age additions payable with incapacity benefit. Amendments Nos. 33 and 40 remove an outstanding reference to "invalidity pension" from Section 87(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. Amendment No. 35 replaces the reference to "invalidity pension" in Section 150(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act with "long-term incapacity benefit". This is the list of qualifying benefits for payment of a Christmas bonus. Amendment No. 36 replaces a redundant reference to "invalidity pension" with "long-term incapacity benefit" in Schedule 3 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 41 remove the old rates of invalidity allowance from the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. Invalidity allowance will continue to be paid to transitional cases but this will be dealt with in regulations. Amendments Nos. 38 and 42 correct a change being made to paragraph 38 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. At present this incorrectly removes the word "benefit" leaving a reference to "unemployment" rather than "unemployment benefit".
Amendment No. 39 changes the reference for dependency increases from "Section 82" to "Section 86A" of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. This is the new section dealing with dependency increases for incapacity benefit. It also replaces a redundant reference to "sickness benefit" with "short-term incapacity benefit". These are, as I said, technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I intended to speak on the last amendment, but the Deputy Speaker is faster on his pins than I am. However, I want to take the opportunity provided by this amendment to thank my noble friend

1551
for the announcement which he made about the disability working allowance. I wonder what he would have done if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had not moved his amendment before his press office inadvertently published what could have been a non-existent announcement before it was spiritually made.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is thoroughly out of order in speaking to an earlier amendment at this stage. However, during the process of this Bill it is quite rare to get praise from my noble friend. I am delighted to get it even if it is slightly out of order. As I said, I am not sure whether the announcement on the ticker tape was early or I was rather late. I apologise to your Lordships. It should have happened at the same time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 23, line 16, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 17.
Page 26, line 4, at end insert ("or training of such other description as may be prescribed").
Page 27, line 44, after ("(1) (b)") insert (", in the words immediately following subsection (1) (b)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 28, line 43, at end insert:
(". In section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Housing benefits), at end of subsection (5) (power to limit payments by reference to determinations by rent officers) insert—
"so, however, that any power which the Secretary of State gives to an appropriate housing authority so as to limit benefit shall only be exercisable in relation to a person incapable of work within the meaning of this Act if suitable alternative accommodation is actually available and the authority considers that it is reasonable to expect him to move from his present accommodation; and for the purposes of this subsection a person who is not incapable of work shall be treated as though he were so incapable for a period of 2 years from the commencement of this Act if, but for the passing of the Act, he would have been regarded as so incapable.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can, I think, now praise the Minister in order. The Minister kindly gave a meeting on this amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and myself. We have had a constructive discussion and I wait with great interest to see what will happen as a result of it.
The amendment deals with transitional protection for housing benefit. Under the Housing Benefit Regulations 1987, if a claimant occupies a dwelling larger than is reasonably required, there may be a direction that the rent be reduced by such amount as is considered appropriate. In homelessness debates we are familiar with the giving of such directions. They account for a very large number of the homelessness cases that come to our attention. It is difficult to quantify it, but it is clearly a significant factor. As the pressure on the housing benefit budget increases, it is likely to become more significant. But there is one exception under Regulation 11(3) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 1987. In that case, if any person is incapable of work, he
1552
or she is to be exempted from any deduction under paragraph (2) for reducing the amount of housing benefit for which that person is eligible.
It is the Government's expectation I have already indicated some doubt about whether that expectation is correct but it clearly could happen - that, as a result of the Bill, a number of people will be found capable of work who have hitherto been found incapable of work. That means that under the 1987 Housing Benefit Regulations they will be hit with the proverbial double whammy. First, they will be found capable of work and lose their benefit and then, fairly shortly afterwards, they will get a reduced benefit direction for housing benefit and find that their housing benefit is reduced to a level where it is below their rent. Clearly, that could be very uncomfortable, but it could also add something to the extent of homelessness, which is something that is worrying the Department of the Environment and a great many other people at the moment. Homelessness is notoriously expensive as well as painful and if we can keep it down we should.
The Minister originally argued in Committee that it was inequitable to give such protection to some people when it was not given to others who were found capable of work. But I think that it is equitable because by using the old system for so long the Government have built up a body of reasonable expectations - and when one's reasonable expectations are suddenly taken away one needs time to make adjustments.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, quoted the payments for ex-Ministers. I do not think that those are inequitable. I understand the point of them, but I also think that it is equitable to give the same sort of transitional protection to people who will suffer as a result of the Bill.
I do not think that the Minister is persisting with that argument. There is some discussion about how far it is necessary. I remind the Minister of what I said earlier about Jacks-in-office. When a policy is put in place it is sometimes pursued with unnecessary enthusiasm. 'That has always been the case and will, I think, always be the case. So there will always be people who get reduced benefit directions for housing benefit. That its why I think that transitional protection is needed.
We have had some discussion about how many people will be involved in this. That is conjectural on both sides, so we agree that there is some difficulty in reaching an agreed figure. But even if it is only a small number of people, it is only a small number of words in legislation. It is not a great upheaval in the structure of the Bill. And if it provides legitimate and useful protection—even if for only a few people, which I do not believe it is—I think that it should be welcomed. I look forward with a great deal of interest to hearing what the Minister has to say as a result of our discussions. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I need add nothing to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, except to, thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteousness in allowing me to come to the meeting that he had 'with the noble Earl, which I found useful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I support the spirit of the amendment. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am not sure how many people will be affected by it because clearly it is the local authorities' power and responsibility to determine the extent to which they will top up housing benefit beyond the reasonable rent assessed by the rent officer. But even if the Minister does not feel minded to accept the amendment as a transitional arrangement, it would at least make the point if his colleagues in the Department of the Environment were minded to send guidance to local authorities about the use of housing benefit to ensure that any disabled person who by definition is in an expensive property, a housing association property and the like, for which the level of benefit might be deemed in other circumstances to be unreasonable will be protected at least for a reasonable period of time.
That could be done by amendment; it could equally well be done by a code of guidance in that, as I understand it, local authorities have a discretionary power to that effect. If the Minister cannot move on the amendment, I hope that he will at least give an assurance that he will discuss this issue with his noble friends in the the Department of the Environment so that the thrust of the amendment could be pursued through a code of guidance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, when the amendment was debated in Committee I gave an undertaking to consider carefully what had been said and I agreed to meet the noble Earl and my noble friend to discuss further the points that had been raised in the debate. We did have a meeting.
The group of people about whom we are talking are tenants who are either single or childless couples living in the deregulated private rented sector whose contractual rents are above market levels. Our estimate is that the numbers involved are very small.
Concerns were expressed about those tenants with severe disabilities and the likelihood of them losing the additional protection given in the housing benefit legislation. Those people should not lose that protection because they would no doubt still qualify for the award of the severe disability premium or the disability premium on account of their severe disability.
I should point out that local authorities have a duty to consider the reasonableness of the rent to protect the public purse, and they must consider restricting rents where the tenant occupies over-large accommodation or where the rent is unreasonably high by comparison with the rent for suitable alternative accommodation. However, for those tenants who fall in the vulnerable groups (those with children, the elderly and the sick and disabled) the local authority has also to demonstrate availability of the alternative accommodation.
In any case, before a local authority makes a restriction it must take account of, among other things, the nature of any alternative accommodation and the facilities provided, having regard to the age and state of health of the tenant and members of the household. Alternative accommodation must meet the needs of the tenant, and if it does not then the local authority would have no option but to meet the rent in full.
1554
The changes in the Bill would have an impact only on those tenants who are either single or childless couples who are incapable under the current rules but would not be transitionally protected because they do not meet the criteria of the new medical test. As I said, those tenants would be few in number, and with the duty imposed on local authorities to consider the suitability of the alternative accommodation, I do not feel that it would be right to provide legal protection with all the administrative difficulties which would ensue from doing so.
We are unaware of any difficulties caused by the present system whereby an incapable person becomes capable and loses his vulnerable status. If transitional protection is given for the full two years, it would be difficult to remove entitlement for those whose circumstances genuinely change.
Additional protection will be better focused on those genuinely incapable of work, for whom it was always intended. Those with severe physical disabilities will continue to be protected. Local authorities can meet rents in full if, after considering a claimant's individual circumstances, they decide that there will be genuine hardship.
In the light of the anxieties expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I propose that my department writes to all local authorities to notify them of the proposed changes once the Bill has received parliamentary approval. This letter would remind them of their existing duties to consider each case on its own merits and, where appropriate, use their discretion to treat any case affected in a sympathetic manner. With that undertaking, and indeed the further explanation that I have given, I hope I have gone a substantially long way to satisfy the noble Earl and that he may now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very warmly for that reply. He has chosen his words exactly. He has gone a long way to satisfy me. That is all I had any reasonable right to expect. I very warmly welcome his undertaking to communicate with local authorities in order to draw their attention to the problem. I should be extremely grateful if he could also monitor the reaction of local authorities and especially try to see how far the reaction of local authorities has anything to do with how severely they are strapped for cash as a result of difficulties with standard spending assessments. I realise that I am asking there for icing on the cake, but the icing on the cake may make quite a considerable difference to how palatable it is in the consumption.
I shall not enter into all the details of the points of the Minister's response but I will say that I take his point about the difficulty of extending transitional protection for two years to those who are fully recovered. It may not be as powerful a point in the housing market as it is in the medical one, but it is one which I must certainly recognise. It remains only for me to thank the Minister once again for the care, trouble, hard work and the very careful thought that he has put into this and, with that, to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved. Amendments Nos. 35 to 39:
Page 28, line 43, at end insert:
. In section 150(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (qualifying benefits for purposes of Christmas bonus for pensioners), for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) long-term incapacity benefit;".").

Page 29, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph 5(6) (widowed mother's allowance, widow's pension and Category A and B retirement pensions), for "an invalidity pension" substitute "long-term incapacity benefit".").
Page 29, line 29, after ("benefit, &c.)") insert:

("(a) in Part I (contributory periodical benefits), omit paragraph 3; and

(b)").

Page 29, line 30, leave out ("benefit").
Page 29, line 40, at end insert:
. In Part I of Schedule 8 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (workmen's compensation and industrial diseases benefit in respect of employment before 5th July 1948: nature and amount of benefit under industrial diseases benefit schemes), in paragraph 6(4) (d)—

(a) for "section 82" substitute "section 86A"; and

(b) for "sickness benefit" substitute "short-term incapacity benefit".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 33, column 3, line 42, at end insert (, the words immediately following subsection (1) (b)").
Page 34, column 3, line 13, at end insert:
("In Schedule 4, in Part I, paragraph 3.").
Page 34, column 3, leave out line 17.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: BILL OF RIGHTS PROPOSALS
  DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: BILL OF RIGHTS PROPOSALS
  EC FINANCIAL INFORMATION : CURRENCY DENOMINATION
  EC FINANCIAL INFORMATION : CURRENCY DENOMINATION
  MOTOR CYCLES: PROPOSED POWER LIMIT
  MOTOR CYCLES: PROPOSED POWER LIMIT
  DISABLED PEOPLE: PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
  DISABLED PEOPLE: PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
  EC ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT SCHEME
  EC ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT SCHEME