Sitting of 4 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for manufacturing employment. [16003]
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): Manufacturing employment in Great Britain rose by 8,000 in the latest month, to stand at 4.3 million in January 1995.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are extremely encouraging? What would be the impact on that increase in manufacturing employment if the social chapter and other measures beloved of the Labour party were imposed on this country? How relevant does my right hon. Friend consider the recent statement of the president of Daimler-Benz in Germany that if the imposition of the social chapter were continued and extended, there would be no manufacturing employment left?
    Mr. Portillo: I consider it a substantial advantage to manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom that we do not subscribe to the social chapter. It is clear that inward investors value our membership of the European Union, but consider it very important that the costs of the social chapter are not imposed on us. Our duty as politicians and legislators should be to make it easy for one person to give another a job, rather than to impose burdens that prevent employers from creating jobs.
    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Secretary of State agree that a key factor in sustaining and, indeed, increasing employment in our manufacturing industries is the development of a highly trained and highly skilled work force, and that the modern apprenticeship schemes could well play an important role in that? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that engineering apprenticeships should take priority over training and enterprise council funding plans relating to other, more easily achievable apprenticeships, so that we can achieve an increased and sustainable work force in manufacturing industry in the long term?
    Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to hear a tribute to the Government's modern apprenticeship initiative from an Opposition Member. It is indeed an important initiative, raising skills to a level that is vital in industry.
    I think that all the apprenticeships should be rigorous. People should be expected to achieve standards of excellence in the modern apprenticeship programme, and in national vocational qualifications. I do not believe that I myself should choose between one sector and another, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that engineering is an extremely important sector of British industry.
    Ms Harman: Does the Secretary of State admit that the reason why people are so concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs—40 per cent. have been lost since 1979—is not just unemployment, but the low pay that goes with it? Does he not recognise that when manufacturing jobs are lost, the new jobs that replace them are often low paid? One million people in this country earn less than £2.50 an hour. Is that not a disgrace, and does it not mean that the Tory party is the party of low pay?
    Mr. Portillo: I know that the hon. Lady does her research very carefully. She will know that, between 1974 and 1979, 609,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. If she has some magic solution, why were manufacturing jobs lost when her party was last in power? Why is it that it is only under this Government that the number of manufacturing jobs is rising?
    If the hon. Lady is worried about low pay—despite the fact that real living standards have risen dramatically under this Government—will she commit herself to the minimum wage level that the Labour party would propose? The trade unions are pushing her on that, and we are pushing her on that. The Labour party must now come clean and tell us. It wants to promise a minimum wage but it does not want to put a figure to it. That is a dishonest posture. She should be ashamed of it.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 1,000 jobs announced yesterday in south Devon by the Canadian company Nortel? They were won in the face of strong opposition from the United States of America and Mexico. Is that not just a massive vote of confidence in the far south-west economy, but a reminder that the United Kingdom remains a paradise for inward investment?
    Mr. Portillo: We remain a paradise for inward investment. The long-term nature of that company's commitment in Devon shows that a strong belief exists that the country will sustain a Conservative Government who will keep us out of the social chapter in the long term.

    Young People
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to increase the percentage of young people in full-time work.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): We will continue with the policies that have reduced unemployment among young people under 25 by 200,000 in the past two years, and that give the United Kingdom an unemployment rate for that age group that is among the lowest in Europe.
    Mr. Flynn: In the paradise of Britain in 1979, 66 per cent. of young people were in employment; the figure is

    1511
    now less than 50 per cent., and three quarters of those people are in part-time, low-paid work. Is not the Minister ashamed that the deserted generation of young people suffer the daily rejection of unemployment or under-employment when they should be enjoying the best years of their lives? Is not the cruel choice for young people in Tory Britain to be fully educated and unemployed, to be fully qualified and partly employed, or, as is the case for 1 million people, to be in full-time work but earning part-time wages?
    Mr. Paice: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is casting doubt on the International Labour Organisation unemployment figures, which show that the unemployment rate for under 25s is 16 per cent., or whether he is somehow trying to use the percentage of young people in education. Of course, fewer people in that age group are in work than in 1979 because far more are staying on in education and going on to gain further qualifications. At present, 73 per cent. of 16-year-olds are staying in full-time education, compared with just 42 per cent. in 1979.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not it the case that, were the UK to have the misfortune of a minimum wage, young people would be the first and the worst to suffer? Cannot that be seen by comparing our country, where we do not have a statutory minimum wage, with France and Spain, which do?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. If one considers the youth unemployment statistics across Europe, a clear similarity exists between countries with high levels of youth unemployment and those with a statutory minimum wage. Compared with the youth unemployment level in the rest of the Europe, our level is exceptionally low. It stands at 16.5 per cent., whereas in Spain it is 38 per cent., in Italy 30 per cent., in Ireland 26 per cent., in France 23 per cent. and in Belgium 9.2 per cent. I could go on. The European average is 19.6 per cent.
    Mr. McCartney: Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the independent report that will be highlighted in tomorrow's press and that will show that, in the past four years, youth unemployment has risen by 24 per cent. Nearly 1.3 million young people are economically inactive and looking for work, and the Government will not provide them with work because of their economic policies. Will he also comment on the fact that eight out of 10 young people in work are earning less than £2 an hour? Is not that proof that the Government are prepared to let young people in Britain work eight weeks full time to earn what Sir Iain Vallance, the British Telecom chief, earns in one hour of one day, and that the Conservative party is the party of low pay, privilege and exploitation?
    Mr. Paice: The alleged research to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not bear very much examination. The reality is that the unemployment level for the under-25s has fallen over the past two years, both as a number and as a proportion of the age group. The number of 16 to 17-year-olds defined as unemployed by the ILO has also gone down in the past two years.
    As for wages, the important thing for young people is that they are developing, learning and training. What matters are the jobs for which they will be suited as adults, which is why to consider their wage levels at a very young age is to take account of only half the problem. If we had a minimum wage, there would be no jobs at all for them.

    Housebuilding Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the housebuilding industry. [16005]
    Mr. Paice: Latest estimates show that there were 1.8 million people employed in the construction industry as a whole.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware from a response that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to me last Thursday that the housebuilding and construction sectors of our economy are in a very depressed state? Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a dramatic multiplier effect if we could regenerate our construction and housebuilding sectors and that, if we did, we might get the feel-good factor sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is, of course, a multiplier effect involving jobs in the construction industry but what would do the country immense damage would be any artificially inspired rise in house prices, which would lead us back into a cycle of inflation. We have seen an improvement in the housing market. Housing output last year was up by 6 per cent. on the previous year, a steady, albeit slow, improvement. That is the best way forward for the economy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why do not the Government release council house sales receipts and employ more building workers?
    Mr. Paice: For the very simple reason that it would go straight on the bottom line of public borrowing.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what comparisons he has made between the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment and that of other major EU countries. [16006]
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Since December 1992, unemployment on the International Labour Organisation definition has fallen by nearly two percentage points in the United Kingdom while in France, Germany and Italy it has risen by one percentage point or more. It has also risen in most other European Union countries as, for example, in Spain where it has risen by 2.7 per cent.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that those excellent comparative results are due to the much more flexible labour market that the Government have created in this country without the harmful influence of a national minimum wage or the social chapter?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a very clear correlation between countries with heavily regulated labour markets and countries with high unemployment. In Britain, flexible labour market policies have meant that we have attracted inward investment, that employers have been able to make the most of the recovery and that people are able to choose and agree with their employers working patterns that suit them. It is a

    1513
    very good country in which to be working, and I hope that the Opposition never get the opportunity to destroy that very sound base.
    Ms Short: Will the Minister please explain how it benefits the British people or the British economy to encourage competition with Europe by promoting low pay in Britain? Does she agree that there is no future for Britain as the sweat shop of Europe?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. I agree that there is no future for us as the sweatshop of Europe because we are not. The Opposition will not like to hear these facts but the take-home pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen 23 per cent. above inflation since 1979. What did the Opposition do for such people? Their pay fell under the previous Labour Government. Since 1979, real pay at all levels has risen for male full-timers and women, in comparison with the late 1970s when productivity and pay stagnated. Real take-home pay for a couple with an average earner has risen by 46 per cent.—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the facts. They want to make statements that they cannot substantiate. When they hear the facts, they do not like it. One can tell how well the country is doing by the length of the Opposition's faces.
    Mr. Heald: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Britain has the fastest-falling rate of unemployment in Europe and that that is because we have a vibrant economy with fast-rising exports and flexible labour markets, and we are the best place in Europe to do business, which is why we are getting so much inward investment at the moment?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant that the rest of Europe is beginning to realise that fact, with an increased concentration on competitiveness and flexibility and a rather embarrassed retreat from over-regulation. That is a tribute to the example that we have set. It is a great pity, indeed, that the Opposition cannot revel in Britain doing well.

    Social Affairs Council
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the next Social Affairs Council meeting is to be held; and what items are to be discussed. [16007]
    Mr. Portillo: The next Social Affairs Council will be held on 29 June. No agenda has yet been published.
    Mr. Cook: The House will have read in the past fortnight of the expressed determination of the German Government to stop the Gastarbeiter from being engaged in conditions or at rates of pay which would undermine the conditions of the indigenous worker. The Secretary of State may be pleased to know that that is indeed welcome news to those constituents of mine who undertake the "Auf Wiedersehen Pet" route and go to work in Germany. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why my constituents may expect the German Minister to defend their standards when he will not?
    Mr. Portillo: If the German Minister's policy of the posted workers directive were carried through, it would prevent the hon. Gentleman's constituents from going anywhere in Europe to find work at the rates of pay that employers would like to offer. I believe in a single European market. I believe in people being able to offer
    1514
    their labour freely in any place in that European market. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not believe that. If he does not, it would be to the disadvantage of his constituents who at present have the freedom to go to Germany and also of his constituents who will be employed when Samsung brings 3,000 jobs to his constituency.
    Mr. John Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend like to suggest to the German presidency that the subject of job creation should be on the agenda, so that he may point out that many more jobs are being created in this country than in other European countries?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is extremely well experienced in these matters and he will not be surprised to hear that when European Employment Ministers meet, although supposedly unemployment is meant to be top of their agenda, they spend much of their time discussing directives which would make it more difficult for people to get jobs in Europe and more difficult to move from country to country. The question of unemployment is usually relegated to a brief discussion towards the end of the agenda.
    Mr. Barron: The Ministers at the Social Affairs Council agree with a national minimum wage. Does the Secretary of State accept that 1 million people who are being paid under £2.50 an hour in the British economy may think that it is a good idea to have a national minimum wage in this country? Why do the Government take every opportunity, including abolishing wages councils, to drive down the hourly rate to level people down? Surely British workers deserve better than this Government who believe in low pay?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman and his party do not believe in anything, or if they do, they are not prepared to tell the public what it is. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on having a minimum wage, I offer him the opportunity to stand up again and tell us what that minimum wage should be. Why will he not do that? I believe in a high-wage economy based on high levels of education and high levels of skill. The hon. Gentleman believes in promising people something which he is not prepared to deliver. He believes in trying to mislead people. I believe in trying to raise people's standards by education and skills. The people of this country, when it comes to the election, will not put up with the deception which is being attempted by the hon. Gentlemen.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made regarding the operation of democracy in (a) the British trade unions and (b) those of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement. [16008]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Our reforms have ensured that trade unions in this country are now more accountable to their members than ever before. The strike rate in the United Kingdom has fallen twice as fast as that in the OECD generally. The last time that there were as few strikes was so long ago that the Liberals were in power.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is it not true that when, in the 1980s, the Government introduced legislation to democratise the

    1515
    trade unions, with secret ballots for electing their leaders and before strike action, the Labour party bitterly opposed it all? Does my hon. Friend agree that under the tranquil waters of trade union democracy there lurks a kraken waiting to be awoken by the Labour party and its trade union paymasters?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Characteristically, my hon. Friend is right. Our trade union reforms have given trade unionists the right to secret ballots before strikes, the right to refuse to strike and the freedom to leave a trade union without losing their jobs. Every one of those policies was opposed by the Labour party. On the basis of that record, the kraken should be put out of its misery by being put permanently to sleep.
    Mr. MacShane: The question referred to trade unions in other countries, and the Minister will be aware that one of the most distinguished European trade unionists is the Secretary of State's opposite number in Germany, the Minister of Labour, Norbert Blüm, who has been in post for about 10 years—unlike the Secretary of State, who is here today, gone Portillo in a few months. Will the Minister reply to the question and assure me that, if we want a high-wage, low-unemployment economy such as that of Germany, which the Secretary of State praised yesterday, the best thing that he could do is to arrange a job swap with the Minister of Labour in Germany so that we could all say auf Wiedersehen, Portillo?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I am not sure which monster sounds worse, the kraken or the Blüm, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Strikes in this country are now running at exactly 1 per cent. of the level that we inherited from Labour in 1979.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the jobseeker's allowance will help people to get back to work. [16009]
    Miss Widdecombe: The back-to-work bonus, national insurance contributions holiday, revision to partners working hours and other jobseeker's allowance measures, combined with the initiatives announced in the Budget, will provide substantial help and incentives for unemployed people.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for that reply. I welcome the splendid news about the falls in the rate of unemployment over the past 14 to 15 months. However, does my hon. Friend agree that for each person who finds himself or herself long-term unemployed, that is a personal tragedy, and that the new package of measures associated with the jobseeker's allowance, such as the back-to-work bonus and the extension of employment on trial are welcome news? Does she agree that they are constructive measures that will increase employment opportunities, as opposed to the job destruction measures advocated by the Opposition, such as the national minimum wage, at whatever rate, and the social chapter?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right, and I have hopes, although I suspect that they are not destined to be fulfilled, that the whole House may welcome the substantial fall in long-term unemployment now occurring. That is due to our labour market policies, and I am glad to say that work start and work trial, the national
    1516
    insurance contributions holiday and the other measures that I have outlined will substantially benefit the long-term unemployed. Again, I am rather sorry to see that there is no joy among the Opposition at the fall in long-term unemployment, but only rather sad looks. They do not want people to feel good, because that means that they feel bad.
    Mr. Battle: Is not the jobseeker's allowance an attempt to drive people back to work by taking their income away if an officer of the employment agency feels that they do not look properly dressed for work or have not made sufficient telephone calls? Where is the justice in that? Are not the Government simply penalising people for being unemployed through no fault of their own?
    Miss Widdecombe: No, the Government are not penalising people for being unemployed, and we are extremely keen that the unemployed should have every possible assistance to get back to work. Benefit cannot be withdrawn on the whim of an employment officer, as there is a process of independent adjudication. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps study the Bill so that he can understand it a bit better.
    Mr. Sykes: Is it not ridiculous that some Opposition Members do not accept that there are some people who will not work, and that the Jobseekers Bill will make such people do a job of work in return for benefit? My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) forgot to mention the national insurance holiday in his list. As an employer, can I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the national insurance holiday will be extremely beneficial in helping the long-term unemployed get off the unemployment list?
    Miss Widdecombe: One of the problems faced by the long-term unemployed is that of employer perception. There is a general, if misguided, view among employers that if a person has been out of work for a substantial time, it is somehow his fault. One of the welcome outcomes of work start, work trial and the national insurance contributions holiday is that they provide an incentive to employers to take on the long-term unemployed. As a result, not only does the long-term unemployed person benefit immediately, but the employer's attitudes towards the long-term unemployed change. I must register once again that I have not heard the Opposition welcome that.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to conduct research into the effects of a national minimum wage. [16010]
    Mr. Oppenheim: I have looked at unemployment among young people in Spain at 38 per cent.—a country which has a national minimum wage—and concluded that no further research is necessary.
    Mr. Gapes: Smart arse.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) refers to the Minister as a "smart arse", but I will say nothing on that subject as I know that you would stop me, Madam Speaker.
    Would the Minister care to contrast a constituent who telephoned me at the weekend to say that he had been offered a job at £1.70 an hour as a security guard—with all the danger that that involves—with the chief executive

    1517
    of PowerGen, who gets £34,000 for three "little jobs" which he does in his spare time, and a further £350,000 in salary? Does not that illustrate that we need legislation not only for a national minimum wage but for a national maximum wage?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I do not know whether that was a Labour policy announcement. We all want the less well-off to be better paid, but the Opposition's policy is doubly deceitful and dishonest. The Opposition pretend to the less well-off that there is a simple and cost-free way to raise wages, but they will not even say until after the election at what level the minimum wage will be set. In effect, they are giving the less well-off a menu without prices in the hope that the less well-off will not find out the true cost—which will be their jobs-until after the election.
    Mr. Thurnham: Did not Barbara Castle carry out research into a minimum wage 20 years ago and reject it because it would cause unemployment? Does not that prove that Labour never learns?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Barbara Castle, when she was Secretary of State for Employment, and John Grant, when he was the low pay Minister in the last Labour Government, had the honesty and integrity to admit that no minimum wage policy could be implemented because of the problem of pushing up differentials. It is extraordinary that new Labour—as it calls itself—is, far from progressing on the issue, regressing.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister happy that 1 million people currently earn less than £2.50 an hour and that 300,000 earn less than £1.50 an hour after nearly 17 years of this appalling Government?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady is quoting from a recent press release from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), which criticised several national supermarket chains for paying less than £4 an hour. The hon. Lady might like to know that her hon. Friend the Member for Peckham missed one important retailer off her list. The Co-op pays many workers about £3.50 an hour, which is well below the TUC's recommended minimum wage.

    Unemployment
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what comparisons he has made of the change in the rate of unemployment between the United Kingdom and other EU countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: In the past two years, unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by 600,000, while unemployment registers rose in the rest of Europe by 1.9 million.
    Mrs. Gillan: Is it not a fact that the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Union in which unemployment not only has fallen consistently in the past year but is below average? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our opt-out from the social chapter preserves not only investment but jobs? Perhaps he would care to comment on the fact that a shop floor superviser for Black and Decker, which recently moved its production from Germany to the United Kingdom, said:
    "Industry is flexible—it has to be—the social chapter isn't."
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has had the record that she described.
    1518
    Unemployment has fallen faster than in any other country and we now have higher employment levels for men and women than most countries in Europe. The general range of flexible labour market policies that the Government have pursued has been responsible for that rapid turnaround in our employment and unemployment prospects, as is recognised throughout Europe. Other countries are studying what we have done. Typically, only the dinosaurs in the Labour party refuse to recognise what has been achieved and how it has been achieved.
    Mr. Grocott: Is it too much to expect a little consistency from the Secretary of State in the lectures that he is fond of giving on our economy? Given that he and the Prime Minister repeatedly lectured us during the worst part of the recession that unemployment was nothing whatsoever to do with the Government, will he take the opportunity of telling the House and the country that, if there is some small upturn in the level of employment, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government?
    Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to grasp fairly simple concepts. What the Government say is that they cannot create jobs. The Government are responsible for creating conditions such as low inflation, in which jobs can be created, but it is for businesses to create jobs. If we did not have low inflation, they would not be created. If we had a Labour Government, it is perfectly clear that we would have no strategy for low inflation and jobs would be destroyed for that reason, too.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that clear evidence of the fact that the pernicious and employment-deterring effects of the social chapter are gradually dawning on European industrialists, rather than on the Labour party, is that Edward Reuter, the chairman of Mercedes-Benz, has said that, unless it does something about the costs that it is incurring but British companies are not, it will gradually move car production out of Germany to, one hopes, the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is evident that European industrial leaders are giving thought to moving their operations to places where they do not face the burdens of the social chapter. They realise that those burdens prevent them from creating jobs. The great irony of all this is that many of the inward investment decisions have been made in north-east England and have benefited Labour consistencies, but Labour Members are so obdurate and blind that they will not even wake up to the benefits for their constituents. That is how well those people are served by Labour Members of Parliament.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State admit that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has been the only G7 country that has seen no rise in the number of people employed? Does he not recognise the plain fact that, when it comes to unemployment, the British people simply do not trust this Government? They know that the Government have never been concerned about unemployment; all they have been concerned about is massaging the figures. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop fiddling the figures on unemployment? When will he stop making excuses about unemployment, and when will he produce some action to tackle unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: During the 1970s, unemployment was worse than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Now, it is at the OECD average, which is an improvement. What the hon. Lady will not do—possibly because she is not so good with figures—is compare a like period with a like period. Over the course of the cycle, the number of jobs in this country has increased by 1.5 million. She needs to compare like with like and not just to pick her dates at random.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current figure for unemployment (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [16012]
    Miss Widdecombe: The International Labour Organisation unemployment rate in the United Kingdom was 8.9 per cent. in January 1995—lower than the EU average of 10.8 per cent. and lower than in every other EU country except Portugal, Luxembourg and Sweden. I shall, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for a full statistical table to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that Governments cannot create jobs but can create the right economic conditions in which business can flourish? Does she agree that the figures that she has just given and the 1,000 a day drop in unemployment demonstrate the success of policies designed to reduce burdens on business and create a framework in which businesses can expand?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any comparative study with other European countries makes it clear that our policies are producing employment. At 68 per cent., we have the third highest percentage of the population in work in the European Union, and we have the second highest percentage of women in work in the European Union. We have a steadily increasing growth in jobs—260,000 in the past year alone. That is a tribute to our policies, as I said before, and Europe is beginning to realise that. Eventually, I suppose, even the Labour party will start to realise it.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the decline in the unemployment numbers, but does the Minister agree that there is a tremendous shortage of skills? Will the Government keep a watch on our European competitors who have hidden Government subsidies that affect even our shipyards? Is there not something wrong when a nation like ours cannot tender for the Oriana and when the Belfast shipyard had to employ 600 labourers from England although there is so much unemployment in Northern Ireland?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to skills. That is what lies behind the many Government initiatives, from the new modern apprenticeships to general national vocational qualifications and the Investors in People scheme. He is also right to say that we must all compete equally in Europe, which is why we are determined that no unfair burden of regulations puts us at a competitive disadvantage and that we will not have our workers stifled, as they would have been under the posted workers directive.
    Mr. Eastham: May I remind the Minister when she is pluming herself about the unemployment figures in the
    1520
    UK that, in 1979, 1.25 million people were unemployed and now 2.5 million are unemployed? May I also remind her of the important fact that 3 million male full-time jobs have been lost in the UK since 1979?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is rather behind the times. We have a higher percentage of males in employment than France, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Spain. Male unemployment has now been falling for some time. Male and female unemployment are falling and full-time and part-time jobs are rising. The Opposition simply cannot recognise facts even when they stare them in the face, but that is a fact. Another fact is that their policies cost jobs, the country will realise that their policies cost jobs, and they will never have an opportunity to tell us what their minimum wage will be because there will be no Labour Government to tell us.
    Mr. Brazier: Although unemployment is desperately sad for the individuals concerned, would not it be astonishing if this country were to look for solutions to the problems in countries with much higher unemployment, when their policies have failed so conspicuously? That seems to be the policy advocated by the Opposition.
    Miss Widdecombe: That is exactly the policy advocated by the Opposition. They are refreshingly honest sometimes. The deputy Leader of the Opposition tells us that a minimum wage will cause shake-out. Will he be explicit and tell us that what will be shaken is people, and what they will be out of is jobs?
    Following is the table:

    Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates in EU Countries

    Latest Month

    Austria

    N/A

    Belgium

    9.9

    December

    Denmark

    9.3

    December

    Germany1

    —

    Greece2

    —

    Finland3

    17.2

    December

    Spain

    22.6

    December

    France

    11.3

    December

    Ireland

    17.6

    December

    Italy

    12.2

    December

    Luxembourg

    3.5

    December

    Netherlands

    10.0

    November

    Portugal

    6.2

    December

    Sweden3

    8.2

    January

    United Kingdom

    8.9

    January

    EU(12) Average

    10.8

    December

    1 No ILO rate available for unified Germany.

    2 Only 1991 annual average figures available for Greece.

    3 Only OECD unemployment rates are available for Finland and Sweden.

    N/A Not available.

    Source: Statistical Office of the European Community Unemployment Bulletin, (except Finland and Sweden—OECD). Latest available data—subject to revision.
    Eurostat—the Statistical Office of the European Community, or SOEC—is currently negotiating with the OECD for both organisations to compile unemployment statistics on a common basis. Because of this, Eurostat has not issued any new figures this

    1521
    month. The figures quoted are those released last month, except in the case of the United Kingdom figures which are based on a methodology which is common to both organisations.
    Next month, Eurostat is expected to re-establish its normal publication schedule and issue figures for all EU members based on this common methodology.
    Note in particular, that the United Kingdom "Youth" unemployment rate has been revised upwards as a result of this review of methodology.

    Redundancies, Dundee
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been made redundant in the Dundee travel-to-work area in the most recent year for which figures are available. [16023]
    Mr. Paice: Information on redundancies is not available for the Dundee travel-to-work area.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister explain why, as happened to me, local Members of Parliament are denied information on local redundancies that have been notified to his Department, on the ground that those redundances are confidential as between the companies concerned and the Department?
    Surely, if it is right for the Government to require companies to notify redundancies to the Department of Employment, it is also right for that Department to provide information about those redundancies on request to Members of the House and, through them, to the local communities that are affected by those redundancies. Or is it simply the case that the Government are now so steeped in undemocratic practices that they believe that only Tory Ministers have the right to know the real number of redundancies in the British economy?
    Mr. Paice: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have the type of close relationship with businesses in his constituency that would lead them to tell him automatically. There is no reason why they cannot tell him if they feel inclined to do so. That is a matter for the businesses themselves to do.
    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has decreased to half what it was 10 years ago. Redundancies are an inevitable part of the dynamism of an economy, as is the creation of new jobs.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16033]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am grateful to OppositionMembers.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to the United States.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the sad plight of about 3,000 haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood used in their ordinary treatment? Do the Government accept the overwhelming moral responsibility that exists and the case
    1522
    for a hardship and compensation fund? When the Prime Minister returns from America, will the Leader of the House ask him to have a word with the Secretary of State for Health and tell her to stop resisting that claim and allow justice to be done?
    Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that of course I am aware of that tragic position. Indeed, I had some experience of a related one when I was Minister for Health and there was the problem of haemophiliacs with AIDS. I will, of course, do as the hon. Gentleman requests and bring his question to the attention of not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Scotland's continuing success in attracting inward investment. Might that in any way be prejudiced by Opposition parties' policies with regard to devolution?
    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that all the signs are that Scotland has just enjoyed another record year for inward investment. I understand that it is attracting inward investment projects at the rate of about 100 a year, examples being Motorola at East Kilbride and NEC at Livingston. One thing is certain: that inward investment is coming as a result of Conservative policies and would be put off by Labour policies.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the economy is now so strong that the Prime Minister can offer tax cuts in November 1995 and November 1996, taxes are going up again on Thursday?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that taxes have had to be increased as part of a number of difficult decisions to bring about recovery from recession and the sustained economic growth that is now going on. As my right hon. Friend said once again at the weekend, as those policies pay off we shall seek to reduce taxes as soon as it is prudent to do so. The one thing that everyone in the country knows is that a Labour Government never have, and never will, reduce taxation.
    Mr. Prescott: Is it not the case that the Government are taking £800 a year in new taxes now, so that at the next general election the Tories can bribe us with our own money? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the British people now know that, when it comes to tax, you can never trust a Tory?
    Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on two facts. The first is that, on average, households are expected to be about £250 better off this year than last, even after tax and inflation, and the second, on which I hope he will reflect, is that, if we had maintained the tax regime that we inherited from the last Labour Government, more than 1 million more people would be paying tax next year.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that middle England is not a land that takes kindly to political correctness or positive discrimination? Will he give a firm assurance that under the Conservatives it will never have to submit to either?
    Mr. Newton: I think that I can safely give my hon. Friend that assurance in general terms, but I would want to look carefully at each specific proposition.
    Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16034]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pearson: Now that the Prime Minister has promised tax cuts in November, will the Leader of the House say whether that is a real promise or the sort of promise that the Chancellor makes on a wet night in Dudley?
    Mr. Newton: It is a point that is reflected in the fact that one in five taxpayers now pays tax at the lower rate of 20p in the pound compared with the basic rate which stood at 33 per cent. when the Labour party was in office. That point is also reflected in the fact that last year's increased allowances for pensioners took 190,000 people out of taxation—many of them, no doubt, in Dudley.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16035]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 56,000 asylum applications awaiting decision? Are not bogus asylum applications damaging to the prospects of honest and true immigrants as well as damaging to race relations? Will my right hon. Friend do something about it? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already announced measures to speed up the processing of asylum applications to deal with the backlog. As a result, 7,000 more cases will be processed every year. My hon. Friend will be aware of, and no doubt welcome, the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear last weekend that there will be a new Bill in the autumn to tighten up the asylum rules further. I believe that that will be widely welcomed, as it is, as my hon. Friend said, in the interests of good race relations.

    Front-line Services, Sheffield
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Sheffield to discuss funding of front-line services. [16036]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Michie: Two years ago, the Prime Minister did have plans, but never arrived. When the Leader of the House answers this supplementary question, will he debate not the past but the present and future in terms of funding in Sheffield? The funding in terms of Government grant is becoming so bad that it is affecting front-line services to such a degree that the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in Sheffield support a redetermination bid. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to support that bid and to come to talk to the people of Sheffield—the carers, teachers and children—who are suffering under the present regime?
    Mr. Newton: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman, like many other Opposition Members, does not want to debate the past, and I will not do so—I shall come to the present. The latest figures for March 1994 show that there are, in Sheffield, nearly £8 million in council tax arrears, more than 1,200 vacant properties and unspent school balances of £5 million. Perhaps the Opposition should address those problems first.

    Engagements
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16037]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barron: Has the Leader of the House seen the latest report of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which reveals that because of Government cuts this year, only 17,000 new homes will be built? Given that repossessions in Britain are still running at 1,000 per week, does he agree with me that the Prime Minister's offer on Saturday of a White Paper on housing is totally inadequate for the needs of the country?
    Mr. Newton: I might pay more attention to the hon. Gentleman if his comments were a little more balanced—for example, if he had acknowledged that last year housing starts were up 13 per cent. and repossessions have fallen by more than a third since the peak in 1991. He might have added that the average mortgage is now down by £140 a month since 1990.
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16039]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heald: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the Audit Commission report on the performance of local authorities, showing that Conservative authorities provide better services at lower costs, that eight out of the top 10 most debt-ridden councils are Labour and that, typically, a Conservative council has a council tax 40 per cent. lower than a Labour council? Does that not show that Britain is better off under the Tories?
    Mr. Newton: I sense some support for my hon. Friend and I certainly wish to extend my support to him. The report ties in the indicators in the Audit Commission report with the fact that for the average band C council tax payer, Conservative councils cost people nearly 40 per cent. less than Labour councils and 25 per cent. less than Liberal Democrat councils. The fact is that Conservative councils do cost less and provide better services.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister expect a vote of confidence in the Government in the Scottish local authority elections on Thursday?
    Mr. Newton: I envisage that in the Scottish local elections on Thursday people will focus on the fact that

    1525
    in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Conservative councils cost them less and give them better value for money.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16040]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend consider joining me in congratulating the Federation of Small Businesses, which voted at its annual conference to come out of the European Community? Does he agree that most good economic ideas have their origins in small businesses?
    Mr. Newton: I fall short of expressing congratulation in quite the terms that my hon. Friend seeks, but I certainly did note the resolution of the Federation of Small Businesses in Torquay, not least because I happened to be in the west country that weekend and was asked one or two questions about it. We all understand the federation's concerns, not least about what is sometimes seen as excessive interference and over-regulation. We need to continue to address those real concerns, both by our attitude to subsidiarity in Europe and by our policies on deregulation at home.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the Government's deep and continuing unpopularity, can the Leader of the House tell us how far the Prime Minister is safe from internal party intrigues to change the party leadership? Does he accept that the words of loyalty he will no doubt say were used by Cabinet Ministers in 1990? Look what happened to her—she was betrayed by her Cabinet colleagues and repeatedly stabbed in the back.
    Mr. Newton: I recall something else about 1990, which is that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the deep unpopularity of the Government two years before we won the last election.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April. [16041]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing waste, bureaucracy and extravagance that mark so many Liberal and Labour local authorities? Is he aware that Suffolk county council, while protesting frugality, is spending some 30 per cent. more on its education bureaucracy than the surrounding counties—money that could be spent directly on schools and pupils?
    Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the specific figures from my neighbouring county of Suffolk. What my hon. Friend said will certainly strike a chord with many Conservative Members. The figures reflect the extremely large number of non-teaching staff compared with teaching staff, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Simpson: Will the Leader of the House explain the compelling case for a cut in taxation at a time when the Government will not fully fund the pay awards that they make, or the services that they demand, in health and education?
    Mr. Newton: The compelling case is to strike an appropriate balance between those considerations and the considerations of enlarging choice and improving our economic prospects. The Government have constantly sought to do that and it is reflected in the improvement of our public services, in the strengthening of our economy and in paving the way to cut taxes when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly understands that the butchers, the bakers and the candlestick makers are fed up with regulatory overkill. Will he take this opportunity to confirm to the House that he understands that, when Government make a law, that law impacts most heavily on those who get up in the morning and make something or do something—in other words, those people who create the wealth in our nation and upon whom the rest of society depends?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). There is no doubt that our emphasis on reducing unnecessary interference from Brussels through the subsidiarity theme and not least our emphasis on deregulatory measures at home—which we shall continue to drive forward—are of great importance to the business prosperity of this country.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw attention to a problem that arises constantly between me and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to whom I have given notice of my point of order. The hon. Gentleman constantly invents phrases and attributes them to me. On this occasion, I point to the Hansard of the Scottish Grand Committee of—
Madam Speaker: Order. Political knockabouts that take place in the Scottish Grand Committee are not points of order; to raise them as such is an abuse of the House. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) should raise them at the time and not now.
Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) during the education debate last Wednesday. I have given notice of my intention to raise a point of order to the hon. Member for Brightside, and to the shadow apprentice, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
In column 1037 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Brightside claimed during the education debate last week that Kent county council had spent £9 million on a nursery voucher experiment. I have checked that, and it is not true.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a political argument. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) might have done me the courtesy of letting me know in advance. If he will come to his point of order to me, I will try to deal with it. He might have made some indication to me, so that I might also see Hansard.
Mr. Dunn: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry that you were not told about the point of order—it is my fault entirely. I am making a charge against the hon. Member for Brightside that he misled the House with a statement which was untrue. While I was debating the matter today on Radio Kent, I received a message that the hon. Member for Brightside had acknowledged that the statement was untrue.
Madam Speaker: What is the point of order for me, please?
Mr. Dunn: I am about to get to it, Madam Speaker. I am taking my time, to make sure that you have the full facts before you.
Madam Speaker: Order. If I had the full facts, I would be able to respond to the hon. Member. He might have done me the courtesy of giving me the full facts to start with.
Mr. Dunn: Madam Speaker, as you know, I have already apologised for not giving you the full facts.
The hon. Member for Brightside has acknowledged that the statement that he made was misleading and untrue. I think it is essential that he should come to the Chamber and apologise to you and to the House for misleading us last Wednesday.
Madam Speaker: I will look at Hansard. Far too often, hon. Members raise points of order that are not points of
1528
order but are questions of political cut and thrust and debate across the Floor of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have the opportunity to correct these issues by means of the Order Paper and in debate.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I entirely understand the grounds on which you refused my private notice question, Madam Speaker, but I hope that you will allow me the licence to remark that, the next time a Secretary of State closes a hospital that is nearly 900 years old, he or she will have the moral courage to come to the Dispatch Box.
Sir John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The next time that a Secretary of State wishes to close another hospital in my constituency, I hope that a similar courtesy will be offered, so that I may be given an opportunity to vote against it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must deal with those two points of order.
The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) was a Secretary of State for many years, and therefore is probably not aware that we do not mention applications that are made to me about such matters. However, I understand his strength of feeling.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) that there is an Adjournment motion tomorrow morning, when hon. Members will have three hours during which they may raise such issues? If hon. Members are in their place at that time, I might look their way. Who knows?
Mr. Ian McCartney: I seek your advice on access to information to deal with constituency issues. For some months now, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been inquiring about the blood transfusion service, in particular the closure programme at Lancaster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and I have found out that our telephone calls about these matters are being monitored by the management of the blood transfusion service, and, as part of that procedure is to prevent us from discussing matters with the staff at the centre, I find it an abuse of hon. Members' access to deal with constituency matters. I ask you what we need to do to ensure that that monitoring is stopped immediately.
Madam Speaker: There may well be a question of privilege involved in that. Will the hon. Gentleman please write to me without delay?
Mr. Jacques Arnold: What protection do hon. Members have from the provision of bogus statistics and information such as that provided by the Lib-Lab Kent county council to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)?
Madam Speaker: I hope that they will exercise their minds about these matters and determine for themselves what are the true statistics.
Mr. Peter Butler: I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given notice, both to yourself, Madam Speaker—although briefly and without a copy of Hansard, for which I apologise—and

1529
to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). It arises from the debate last Wednesday on education. I was present at the opening of the debate and, indeed, for the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I had left by the time the incident that I am about to raise had taken place, because I had gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
After I had left, the hon. Member for Brightside, in an intervention, purported to describe a letter that I had written to a constituent, saying that it attacked Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire. That was a misrepresentation of the contents of the letter, but I appreciate that you will not take that point. My point is that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the courtesy of informing me that he was going to raise the matter. He had the letter with him—translated, I believe, into braille, for obvious reasons. He was clearly prepared to use it, and intended so to do.
Madam Speaker, you repeatedly rule that hon. Members should observe common courtesy among themselves; you are repeatedly ignored. Is there anything that you can do about it?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority to enforce it. I simply ask hon. Members to abide by common courtesies. Far too many hon. Members do not do so.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Following that, and having heard your answers to colleagues earlier, Madam Speaker, I raise a more general point of order about statements and answers. I know that you cannot determine what Ministers do, but surely there must be some control of Ministers who make statements about a minor variation in policy, and yet do not make any statements about the conclusion of an assessment of policy—the health service reforms in London. The assessment of that policy was introduced by a statement, but the decisions were announced by way of a written answer, not a statement.
I have no chance, as the Member of Parliament representing Guy's hospital—and nor have the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr.
1530
Brooke), representing Bart's, and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst)—to ask any questions; and the whole process began with a statement in the House.
I am merely asking you, Madam Speaker, to find out whether rules exist to determine what matters are so important that they must be brought to the House. Otherwise, war could be declared by means of a written answer and peace by means of a statement, and we would have no chance to ask about the former—only a chance to say, "Thank you very much," when we are told the latter.
Madam Speaker: I well understand hon. Members' frustration, but there are no rules that I can consult. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, and others, will put the matter to the Procedure Committee. I entirely accept that there are occasions when it is very important for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box so that hon. Members can question him. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that there is an Adjournment debate tomorrow morning, but I make no promises. Let us leave it at that for the moment.
Mr. Michael Stephen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has spent £41.5 million on building an almost completely new hospital to serve my constituents. I am extremely disappointed that she is not here today, so that I can congratulate her personally.
Madam Speaker: That is a total abuse of the House. I should have thought that hon. Members—however new they were in 1992—would be accustomed to our procedures now, and would not continue to abuse the House and its procedures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I am going to move on now. I have taken enough points of order.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Madam Speaker: I have already taken a point of order from the hon. Gentleman. He must resume his seat.

Boxing
3.41 pm
Mr. Jim Callaghan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the sport of boxing.
As a young sports teacher many years ago, I always had doubts about the merits of boxing, having seen the state of a former Manchester world champion; but it was when I saw the plight of Muhammud Ali that I became totally convinced of the terrible tragedies and hazards connected with professional boxing. He was and is known as "the greatest", but in my view he is the greatest advertisement for the necessity of an independent Government inquiry to investigate the safety of boxing.
It is said that Ali has Parkinson's disease, and that his condition is not due to boxing, but my videos of his latest fight suggest otherwise. I have with me an Evening Standard report that claims that he received 29,000 blows to the head. I do not know whether that is an exaggeration, but I do know that he took one blow too many.
Given the medical condition of another professional boxer, Michael Watson, following a contest between him and Chris Eubank, I asked the Minister responsible for sport for his views and intentions regarding the dangers of professional boxing. On 23 June 1993, I asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he had received a copy of the British Medical Association's book, "The Boxing Debate", which reported in detail the medical risks associated with boxing, and whether he intended to set up an independent inquiry. I also asked the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister's questions, if he would ban boxing. The answer has always been the same.
On 10 May 1994, I succeeded in obtaining an Adjournment Debate on brain injuries in boxing. I based my speech on the BMA's book. The BMA wants boxing to be banned, and in 1982 it declared:
"in view of the proven ocular and brain damage resulting from professional boxing the BMA should campaign for its abolition."
In 1987, the BMA stated:
"In view of the continuing serious ill effects on the health of boxers the BMA should pursue the Government with renewed vigour until there is a ban on boxing."
In 1992, it again called for a ban on boxing, and in 1993, it produced its book "The Boxing Debate", which states that the heaviest blows may represent as much as half a tonne—which is like being hit by a 12 lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20 mph. That is enough force and velocity to injure any brain.
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 attributed to acute haemorrhage of the brain.
The second kind of damage tends to develop over a much longer period and is cumulative. It is associated with chronic neurological disorders that are often experienced by boxers. Damage to the eye and brain occurs in both amateur and professional boxers, although it is doubtful whether participants or others involved in boxing fully appreciate the risks, especially the dangers of delayed, cumulative brain damage.
1532
Damage can be detected only after it has occurred, and by then it may be too late. It has been too late for 361 boxers whose deaths have been recorded worldwide since 1945. In the United Kingdom, it has been too late for the following boxers. In 1969, Ulrich Regis died after fighting Joe Bugner. In 1979, Angelo Jacopucci died after fighting Alan Minter. In 1980, Johnny Owen, aged 24, died after fighting Lupe Pintor. In 1982, Young Ali died after fighting Barry McGuigan. In 1986, Steve Watt died after fighting Rocky Kelly. In 1987, Joe Sticklen died in his first fight. In 1988, Brian Baronet died fighting Kenny Vice. In 1989, Rod Douglas had to have brain surgery; he will never fight again.
In 1989, Roy Hodgson died. In 1991, Michael Watson fought Eubank. We know that Michael Watson is in a wheelchair, having had brain surgery. In 1994, Bradley Stone, aged 23, died. In 1994, Michael Bentt went into hospital after fighting Herbie Hide. He will not fight again. In 1995, we had the most recent case, involving the McClellan v. Nigel Benn contest. Three amateurs, one in Liverpool, one in London and one in Margate, have all had brain surgery.
From those statistics alone, it can be said that prevention is better than cure, particularly when the disease in question is incurable. The virility, or any other virtue, shown by one man hitting another on the head in a boxing ring cannot transform the act into an accident. The blows are intended. Hitting one another is deliberate. That point, no matter how trite, distinguishes boxing from all other sports. The prime intention is to knock out one's opponent before he has a chance to inflict a knock-out blow on the other boxer.
Before his recent fight, Gerald McClellan said:
"You have to go to war and in war you have to be prepared to die."
That is what boxing is. We all know that Gerald got his war, and that, tragically, he paid the price in his savage bout with Nigel Benn. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in the House today in saying that we all wish him well now that he has survived a life-threatening injury and been flown back to the United States of America to be with his family. I doubt whether he will fight again.
I am sure that the House will also want to send its full appreciation to Mr. John Sutcliffe, the neurosurgeon who operated so successfully on Gerald McClellan. He has saved his life. Although it may surprise hon. Members, I also give credit to the British Boxing Board of Control, which has made important safety improvements in boxing since learning the lessons from the Watson-Eubank fight. Perhaps it read the suggestions I made in my Adjournment debate on 10 May 1994. It had four doctors, paramedics and ambulances at the McClellan-Benn fight. The speed with which oxygen was administered to the stricken boxer saved his life.
Despite all those necessary reforms, further calamities will occur. I was deeply concerned when, after the Gerald McClellan fight, I read in the press that many 11-year-old children were getting ready for their first bouts. The "kid gloves" scheme at Croxteth community school has put boxing back in schools. The Minister with responsibility for sport has confirmed that the school is receiving financial support from the Sports Council and Sportsmatch.
From a recent parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), a neurosurgeon, we learned that Sportsmatch

1533
contributed £5,000 to the scheme. It is ludicrous for the Minister to argue that the scheme involves a "non-contact" form of boxing, and that its purpose is to teach children the skills and discipline of boxing without hitting an opponent. How ridiculous.
Over a number of years, I have asked various Ministers to initiate an independent inquiry into the health risks associated with boxing, all of which have been highlighted by the BMA in its various reports on boxing.
I have been told that the Government did not believe that the risks associated with boxing were sufficient to justify such an inquiry. I deeply regret the Government's negative attitude towards such requests, because I firmly believe that a public inquiry could prevent serious injuries, and even death, for some boxers.
I still believe that an independent inquiry is necessary because we have reached an impasse, with the British Medical Association on one side of the argument about safety in boxing and the British Boxing Board of Control on the other, with the Minister responsible for sport in the middle, not doing anything. Because of that impasse, I believe that there is no alternative but to ban boxing before further calamities occur in the boxing ring.
As one famous boxer recently said:
"Boxing damages your brain. Don't let anyone tell you different."
Accordingly, I urge the House to take action to save the health and lives of boxers by calling for a ban on boxing.
3.51 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to oppose the Bill, but, in doing so, I acknowledge that no hon. Member doubts the sincerity of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) or his consistency of view in this important matter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a catalogue of deaths in boxing, and I am quite prepared, in defending boxing, to stand up and say that 14 boxers have been killed since 1946. However, I ask the House to set against that statistic the fact that, this winter alone, many more people than that have died on the Cairngorms while mountaineering. No hon. Member has come to the House to say that mountaineering should therefore be made illegal.
There is an extremely serious inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument. I remind him and the House that people can choose whether to box, just as they can choose whether to go mountaineering, with all the known attendant dangers.
The tragic case of Michael Watson and the others mentioned by the hon. Gentleman moved the House as they moved this country. Such suffering moves the world, as does the suffering of people in any sport who are damaged almost to the point of death. I would remind the House that Mr. Sutcliffe, the surgeon who operated on McClellan and was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, does not want boxing banned, and nor do many other doctors, who know that it would only go underground if it were.
We really must not take the nanny state to the extremes suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Boxing is a very dangerous sport, as is my own main sport of horse riding. I mentioned mountaineering, but there are also many other dangerous sports, such as skiing, rugby football, motor car racing and cycle racing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Jogging.
Mr. Greenway: People have died jogging, but this is a serious matter, and I want to consider the lethal sports. People are killed in motor racing, but nobody suggests that that should be stopped.
Boxing would not in any event be stopped if the Bill were passed. It would go underground. People would fight with bare fists, unlicensed and without medical supervision. What a dreadful society we would create if that were allowed to happen. What would happen to people drawn in against their will, as they would be if boxing were not open and they were unable to refuse? Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants? I am sure that it is not.
Boxing teaches people the art of self-defence. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that there were no arts that a boxer could employ to defend himself and avoid damaging blows, but the great art of boxing is not to be knocked out or knocked about, and 99 per cent. of boxers achieve that aim.
Boys enjoy boxing. I have helped in boxing clubs in my constituency and in east London, where boys have learned the art of boxing and become involved in an activity which has given them life when nothing else could. Does the hon. Gentleman want to take that away from such boys? Many come off the streets, they learn the art of boxing, and they learn self-discipline, often for the first time. Why should that be taken from them? They enjoy it, their families enjoy it, and the community enjoys it.
With all deference to the hon. Gentleman, is he not aware of clubs all over London where boxing takes place? Does he not know that boxing is returning to schools, and that, in such clubs, schools and other areas, there is very close supervision of the sport? That is its great value. There is medical supervision, training and skill in the sport.
Some distinguished hon. Members have boxed their way to the top. A boxing blue is sitting on the Front Bench today—my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Paymaster General—and some Opposition Members are former boxers. There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), the Opposition's spokesman on sport, and the Paymaster General have both learned to take care of themselves partly through the great sport which they enjoyed so much.
Is the House aware of the distinguished membership of the British Boxing Board of Control? It includes two hon. Members—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). How could it include more distinguished sportsmen? They are not going to stand by with others on that distinguished board and see people mutilated wantonly—and they will not.
There is no doubt that boxing is a fine, well-supervised sport. This House would do ill even to contemplate abolishing it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 120.

Division No.126]

[3.56 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Alton, David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Barron, Kevin

Litherland, Robert

Battle, John

Loyden, Eddie

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McAllion, John

Callaghan, Jim

McCartney, Ian

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McNamara, Kevin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Mahon, Alice

Corston, Jean

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

Davidson, Ian

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eastham, Ken

Morley, Elliot

Etherington, Bill

Mullin, Chris

Fatchett, Derek

Pike, Peter L

Flynn, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Primarolo, Dawn

Fyfe, Maria

Rendel, David

Galbraith, Sam

Rooney, Terry

Garrett, John

Sheerman, Barry

Gordon, Mildred

Soley, Clive

Gunnell, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Harvey, Nick

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Heppell, John

Tyler, Paul

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Illsley, Eric

Wilshire, David

Ingram, Adam

Wise, Audrey

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Jowell, Tessa

Mr. John Home Robertson.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Brazier, Julian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Alexander, Richard

Budgen, Nicholas

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Burden, Richard

Ashby, David

Caborn, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Canavan, Dennis

Austin-Walker, John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Carrington, Matthew

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carttiss, Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Church, Judith

Bermingham, Gerald

Clapham, Michael

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Congdon, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Booth, Hartley

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Couchman, James

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Dalyell, Tam

1536

Day, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Dicks, Terry

Miller, Andrew

Dixon, Don

Mills, Iain

Dover, Den

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Duncan, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Dunn, Bob

Neubert, Sir Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Nicholls, Patrick

Elletson, Harold

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Olner, Bill

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fabricant, Michael

Parry, Robert

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Pearson, Ian

Gale, Roger

Pendry, Tom

Gardiner Sir George

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Porter, David (Waveney)

Graham, Thomas

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Reid, Dr John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Riddick, Graham

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Ross William (E Londonderry)

Hall, Mike

Shersby, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Skinner, Dennis

Hanson, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Stewart, Allan

Hayes, Jerry

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Sweeney, Walter

Henderson, Doug

Sykes, John

Hendron, Dr Joe

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hinchliffe, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Hunter, Andrew

Tipping, Paddy

Jenkin, Bernard

Turner, Dennis

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Keen, Alan

Wigley, Dafydd

Khabra, Piara S

Wilkinson, John

Knapman, Roger

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

McMaster, Gordon

Wray, Jimmy

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Noes:

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe and

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mr. Terry Lewis.

Question accordingly negatived.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 5th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 18th April.—[Mr. Bates.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Finance Bill
    Clause 81

      APPLICATION OF SS.63 TO 66 TO DEBTS HELD BY ASSOCIATES OF BANKS
      4.5 pm
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 80, line 27, leave out '1996' and insert '2000'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 82, in page 80, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
      Mr. Smith: The amendment seeks to put right the injustice which will otherwise be suffered by housing associations and universities—and, as a consequence, by tenants and students—as a result of the Government tightening the tax rules on deep discounted securities and qualifying indexed securities.
      No one disputes the need for the general measure which the Government are introducing in this part of the Bill. It is, of course, wrong that financial institutions should receive the tax subsidy which they have been able to exploit simply through the way in which they structure their lending. What is at issue is the need for protection for the position of housing associations and universities, which, having undertaken borrowing in good faith on a perfectly prudent basis under the existing law, now face higher charges as the lending institutions pass on the higher costs arising from the tax change. Housing associations and universities are, in this sense, innocent victims of the more general and necessary change which the Government have made.
      A number of hon. Members in the Chamber will recall that there were strong feelings on both sides of the Committee, and I recall that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) spoke with passion on the matter.
      There is a strong feeling that something needs to be done on this subject. That housing associations and universities have a case was recognised by the Government. The Financial Secretary acknowledged that the original provisions of the Bill would cause "disruption"—as he described it—to the financial plans of the institutions affected, with consequent and avoidable damage to laudable objectives in social housing and higher education.
      While resisting our amendment, which was seeking more sweeping exemptions for housing associations and universities, the Government tabled their own amendment to allow those bodies an additional year in which to rearrange their finances before the present favourable tax treatment is withdrawn.
      Amendment No. 86 attempts to build on that Government indication of flexibility; it would simply extend the exemption period for a further four years, to five years in total, before tax treatment is changed in the case of loans to housing associations and universities.
      1538
      I stress that the exemption applies only to existing borrowings. Its cost to the Government would be small, when set against the substantial £100 million in savings they are making by closing the present loophole. It is even more modest when one takes into account the knock-on effects, such as housing benefit costs, and the effect on higher education institutions.
      The gains to those institutions, from the additional flexibility in rearranging their affairs which we propose, and the gains to the tenants of the schemes affected, would be considerable. Equally, if no change is made, the effect on those schemes financed by such loans would be detrimental.
      In a statement, the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Dr. Edwards, said:
      "We are very disappointed that the Government has seen fit at this stage to give universities only a year in which to reorganise their finances. If they are not able to do so at the same or better rates, student rents are bound to have to rise, since most schemes have been used to finance the building of student accommodation. This is a very poor signal to universities in terms of the Government's own policy on the private finance initiative. How can universities have sufficient confidence to enter into schemes involving private finance if the Government changes the rules so suddenly?"
      That is the point. The rules have been changed suddenly.
      One understands why it is difficult to give full warning of that sort of tax change, but we are talking of institutions that entered prudently and in good faith into borrowing arrangements, in the interests of their tenants and students, under the injunction that the Government gave them to make sensible use of private finance.
      The National Federation of Housing Associations also underlined the difficulties that the change would pose for its members:
      "We feel strongly that the government should recognise the legitimacy of housing association and university transactions when they were set up, and should at least consider an amendment at the Report Stage to allow a significant transitional period of up to 10 years. This would allow housing associations to choose the point in the economic cycle most appropriate to go for re-financing and thus minimise the detrimental effects particularly on rents."
      Those detrimental effects could otherwise be significant. Increases of between 14 and 38 per cent. were discussed in the original brief from the National Federation of Housing Associations, and universities have also forecast sharp increases. The London School of Economics has warned that the increase might be as much as £9 a week for those of their students accommodated in projects financed by the instruments, and Manchester has warned of a 7 per cent. increase in rents.
      We have tabled the amendment to extend the transitional period, providing, as the National Federation of Housing Associations said, the opportunity for institutions affected to pick the appropriate time in the economic cycle to rearrange their finances. The five-year period is sensible, it is more flexible than the one year by which the Government were prepared to extend the period, and it fits in neatly with the normal minimum holding requirements imposed by the Government on qualifying indexed securities for them to qualify for favourable tax treatment in the first place.
      I will be honest: we suggested five years rather than 10, which some people might have preferred as a transitional allowance, precisely because we think it more likely that the Government will be induced to accept five years, having already been coaxed towards giving the one-year exemption.

      1539
      It is a good case, and I hope that the Government will accept it. It is a modest concession, but it is no doubt right in terms of natural justice, and it will make a big difference to those affected. I commend it to the House.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Nigel Forman: I do not intend to press amendment No. 82, which stands in my name, at the end of this brief debate, for reasons that I shall explain. As I initially raised this issue in Committee, I shall take a few moments to remind the House of the slightly tortuous way in which the matter has developed, and how the university world arrived at the conclusions to which it now clings.
      The clause, which brings qualifying indexed securities into the tax system and closes a loophole that was exploited largely by offshore associates of certain leading financial institutions, has had a bit of a chequered history, particularly in the course of the Standing Committee's debates on qualifying indexed securities.
      To begin with, certain universities and housing associations discovered that some of their private borrowing for capital expenditure purposes using those instruments would be caught by the Finance Bill as it was then drafted, which would probably leave them with extra costs which they had not anticipated. They assumed that banks and other financial institutions would probably find ways to pass those costs on to them, and that the costs would not be absorbed by the intermediaries and financial institutions.
      I took some trouble to draw that problem to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and he was kind, courteous and sympathetic enough to listen carefully to the arguments put at that time by me, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and other Committee members. He showed his customary flexibility, and persuaded my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to introduce a modest concession in delaying by one year the implementation of that measure, to give universities and housing associations the necessary breathing space in which to adjust to the new tax regime.
      As luck would have it, however, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others clearly advised me and other Committee members at that stage that, although well meant by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, the concession might end up doing the sector more harm than good. They told us that, in those circumstances, only a five or possibly 10-year delay in the implementation of that tax regime would do the trick for institutions that had become involved in what are, by any standards, complex instruments.
      To have their full and desirable effect, those instruments must be left in place for a considerable period, because the capital expenditure which they are intended to help finance would be incurred over a considerable period.
      In the light of that background, my amendment was designed to restore the wording of the clause to what it had been before my right hon. Friend's concession, so that it would have excluded universities from benefiting from the Government's concession of one year's breathing space.
      1540
      However, since I tabled that amendment, the plot has thickened, and the various interested parties in that complicated matter have reconsidered the balance of advantage and disadvantage in the existing arrangements. The financial institutions have apparently assured the university world that investors in qualifying indexed securities that are issued by universities are now prepared to clarify the terms of the deals into which they have entered in a direction favourable to the universities.
      For that reason, I should place on record, for the avoidance of doubt, the press release that was issued today by the CVCP, which says about the apparent intellectual gymnastics that the issue has involved:
      "The CVCP has had confirmation from 9 of the 10 universities with QIS schemes that they do not now want to press for exemption from clause 81"—
      as suggested in my amendment No. 82.
      "This was amended by the government at the Committee Stage, and gave universities (and Housing Associations) an extra year. The universities' decision follows discussions with the banks by the universities concerned and the negotiation of a concession by the banks over the increased charges which would have been involved in the one year extension.
      Ideally, those universities would like to see the government concession extended for a total of five years."
      That is the argument that the hon. Member for Oxford, East has made, which is covered in amendment No. 86.
      However, the CVCP does say in conclusion:
      "The CVCP is enormously grateful to all those MPs"—
      it is obviously referring to hon. Members on both sides of the House—
      "who have supported the principle of the universities' case in what is a very complex issue."
      That general thrust of argument to which I have just alluded—in other words, the present position—has been strongly supported in faxes that have been sent to me, in the past day or two, by University college, London, the university of Bristol, the university of Sheffield, the university of Aberdeen, the university of Durham, and, of course, the London School of Economics, which the hon. Member for Oxford, East specifically mentioned.
      All those institutions, I can confidently say, urge me and the House to support the position that has now been reached as a result of the Government concession, allowing that year's breathing space to remain, so that the institutions concerned may use that time to best effect to reorder their affairs, and perhaps to refinance some of their borrowing.
      If you are interested in specifics, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is a complicated matter, I should say that the lending institutions have apparently confirmed that, in the event that the year's breathing space remains, the same beneficial borrowing rate would apply to those instruments for the extra period of grace that is now on offer, until 30 March 1996.
      At the least, that welcome development would remove the financial disadvantage to universities that was threatened before the concession was made, and would provide some extra time in which they might consider the options for closing down QIS instruments and refinancing their university borrowings in other ways.
      To end on a general note, some universities, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows, have been landed in that process in something of an unfortunate muddle, and placed at potential financial hazard by the vagaries and complexities of that piece of tax legislation.

      1541
      The legislation has been necessary, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, to close a loophole that needed closing—no one disputes that. However, something that I previously mentioned in the House has been at work—the law of unintended consequences. It has certainly applied in this case.
      Virtuous and desirable changes in tax law, designed to tackle the problems thrown up by the affiliates and associates of some of the most prominent lending institutions, have had, or appear to have had, undesirable effects on two sectors of considerable interest to the House—the higher education world and the housing world. The hon. Member for Oxford, East was right to mention the end users—students and tenants.
      It is a great pity that the law of unintended consequences should work in that way, because clause 81 in its original form was well directed at the problem. However, the way in which the Government could best make it up to those two sectors—were they minded to do so in future—would be to bear in mind the fact that the private finance initiative, to which the hon. Member for Oxford, East referred, is a worthwhile way forward for many parts of the public sector.
      If my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is prepared, as I hope he is, to cling to the strong statement he made in his recent excellent speech to the Adam Smith Institute—on, I think, 27 March—I trust that he will bend every effort to ensure that the general climate within which public sector institutions seek to use private borrowed money is improved in every sensible way.
      I shall quote one paragraph from my right hon. Friend's excellent speech:
      "The Government's commitment to the private finance initiative is absolute. Our aim is to make the PFI the procurement route of choice for all projects. In a few years' time people will wonder how it could ever have been otherwise. To drive that aim forward the Chancellor announced that in future the Treasury would not approve any capital projects unless private finance options had been explored."
      I say amen to that, as does the higher education sector.
      I hope that one practical consequence of the long-running and slightly complicated debate that the House and the Committee have had on the issue will be that, over the coming months, there will be opportunities for university finance officers, and perhaps housing association finance officers, to have detailed discussions with Treasury and Revenue officials to look at the robustness of any future funding arrangements that they may think of as replacements for qualifying indexed securities in due course.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful comments. Can he satisfy the House and say that, as part of the need to promote such arrangements between the public and private sector, perhaps the most significant necessary aspect is a consistency of tax treatment? Does he feel that, in their approach to such matters, particularly in relation to longer-term considerations affecting housing associations and universities, the Government have shown the necessary consistency in their treatment?
      Mr. Forman: I certainly believe that the maximum possible stability for the tax regime in such matters is highly desirable. In defence of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, may I say that I have seen copies of correspondence—not private—between him and the
      1542
      university world, in which he made it crystal clear in one paragraph that, under our system, it is certainly unusual, if not practically impossible, for any Treasury Minister to give guarantees about tax decisions in a future Budget? I am afraid that that must remain the position under our quaint and familiar constitution.
      In a spirit of helpfulness, I am trying to suggest to the Financial Secretary—I hope that he can follow up my suggestion, perhaps in answer to the debate and subsequently—that it may be possible to inject slightly greater certainty and stability. If that is not done, the desirable thrust of the policy of involving private finance in public sector capital projects, particularly in the two sectors that we have mentioned, will be undermined to some extent. No one on either side of the House would wish that to happen.
      A constructive approach of that sort in future would help the Government and the House to restore the credibility of the approaches taken by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to private finance. It would also lend support to the clear statement of intent that I quoted in Committee—I will not repeat it today—which was drawn from the Department for Education's document "Education means Business".
      I thank my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for his sympathetic efforts to assist us. I underline the importance in such sectors of the greatest practical degree of tax regime stability. At the conclusion of the debate, I shall not press my amendment to a vote.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: I also urge the Minister to support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). In my constituency, there are at least half a dozen community-based housing associations, as well as housing co-operatives which borrow money and are involved in joint ventures. The dedicated men and women who become involved in those committees increasingly do so after a day's work and after looking after their families, and they do an excellent job for the community.
      If it had not been for the community-based housing associations in my constituency, many of the beautiful old Glasgow tenements would have been destroyed and lost for ever. Instead, there are thriving communities in tenements which have existed for many years but have now been totally refurbished inside and out. The back courts are marvellous. When the Prince of Wales was writing his book about architecture, he drew attention to some of the community-based housing association tenements in my constituency.
      The big concern now is that the joint ventures with the banks and building societies mean that rents will increase. If the Minister is not prepared to promise some help today, the rents will increase further.
      The Minister should know that, in at least one community-based housing association in my constituency, through no fault of the committee, 75 per cent. of the rental income is spent on administration. That is a terrible state of affairs. The association is not shrinking from the circulars produced by Scottish Homes stating that we should become involved in more joint ventures. The joint ventures in Glasgow have led to the creation of some lovely buildings, including a building that won an award for the city.

      1543
      If tenants have to face rent increases every year, many tenants will be forced to consider leaving the homes that they fought to get modernised and the communities in which they fought to stay. The Minister may say, "Why don't they buy their houses?", but he will know that, in the housing association movement, more and more tenants are being required to sign what are known as assured tenancy agreements, which deny them the right to buy.
      I shall not get into a debate about whether anyone should buy a house or continue renting, but if people do not have that option, and if a husband and wife both work and receive no housing benefit, there will come a point when those couples realise that it is not financially worth their while staying, and will decide to move to other accommodation. That is moving away from exactly what we have all been promoting in previous debates—family values, and communities staying together.
      What is the point of community-based housing associations fighting to get property modernised so that they can keep everyone together, when the rents force people out? I do not want to see that. I am sure that the Minister does not want to see that, and I hope that he agrees to this small concession.
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I wish to take up the time of the House only briefly, primarily because of my concern about certain aspects of the Government's position on universities.
      Last Friday, as a member of the court of the university of Strathclyde, I had cause to discuss with the principal and the chairman of that university the capital funding difficulties that universities are currently experiencing. I think that it is widely recognised on both sides of the House that universities—indeed, the whole higher education sector—experience periods of considerable financial difficulty.
      This aspect of the Finance Bill was introduced initially for the quite laudable motive of closing tax avoidance loopholes. I believe that the legislation was aimed initially at the trading subsidiaries of banks, which were taking advantage of the laws that then existed to defer and minimise taxation on interest. However, I am concerned that the universities will suffer disproportionately as a result of the new clause. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Warrington (Mr. Forman) pointed out, the one-year period may not be long enough to allow universities to seek alternative arrangements.
      We should give our higher education institutions greater opportunities to concentrate on educational merit and on the pursuit of excellence. They should spend less time dealing with the niceties of financial management. I recognise that that is perhaps a utopian ideal, but university principals and chancellors are concerned that they are spending increasing amounts of time meeting financial arrangements.
      Many principals and chancellors have spent a fair amount of time trying to honour the Chancellor of the Exchequer's requirement to seek assistance through the private finance initiative. They are doing their very best in the circumstances. However, they are deeply concerned about the impact of the clause-particularly as it relates to student accommodation.
      1544
      Those hon. Members with student and student family constituents know that students are currently suffering particular difficulties. Recent events involving the Student Loans Company Ltd. have shown that many families experience great difficulty in assisting young people in higher education. All of us who do not have silver spoons in our mouths and who experienced higher education know how difficult it is to finance young people through university.
      If universities are forced to build new student accommodation, and consequently increase the rent in that accommodation, it stands to reason that that higher cost will be passed on to students at a particularly difficult time in their careers. There is no reason why we should take a partisan approach to the matter before the House this evening. We must find an opportunity to reduce the impact on those sectors—the universities and the housing associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) pointed out—which have been caught in the trap.
      I was much taken with the point that we must allow those organisations to choose a suitable time in the financial cycle to enter the market and raise finance. If we force them to raise funds quickly, they will have no choice in the matter. I can see a situation emerging in which the universities will be frightened away from the private finance initiative and perhaps from further capital expenditure because of the stresses that are put upon them. That will mean that less student accommodation will be built, and that many students will be forced into the private rented sector.
      Many of us have children who are approaching student age, and we would rather see them accommodated in university halls of residence in an environment where they were more likely to be supervised and where their transition from school to university would be made easier. Many of us have very bad memories of the private rented sector.
      Some families in this country are sufficiently concerned about the kind of environment in which their student children are likely to live that they are taking out mortgages, which are placing them under enormous financial pressure. They are trying to buy accommodation, so that their children can have some security as they enter university.
      Many young people in my constituency are entering university for the first time in their families' histories. Their families are deeply concerned about the kind of university environment that their children will encounter, and they would rather see them living in university accommodation.
      I am convinced that, if the Government think through the amendment, they will see the logic of extending the period to five years. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East, that the amendment seeks to look at a period of only five years, not 10, to make it less unpalatable to the Government.
      I cannot believe that right-minded Members, on both sides of the House, would wish to see universities put into a less favourable situation. Many universities are trying to do their best in creating an environment of excellence. Indeed, many are so concentrating on the capital requirements that they will have to meet in the next few years that they are having to think less about the money that will be put into teaching and into research funds.
      It is unacceptable, as we reach the turn of the century, when we should look to improve the excellence in our institutions of higher education, that we are putting this unexpected burden on them. It is not a dramatic

      1545
      amendment. Indeed, all the Opposition's amendments are moderate, and this is no exception. Common sense should apply, and we should ensure that the universities and housing associations are not disadvantaged unwittingly by this aspect of the proposed legislation.
      Mr. Clive Betts: In Committee, we had a good debate on the clause and how it affects—in some ways inadvertently—both housing associations and universities. I do not think that it was the Government's prime intention in drafting the clause to attack and single out those two institutions for penalties under the new arrangements. Every hon. Member who spoke in Committee accepted that there was a misuse of qualifying indexed securities and deep discount securities by associates of banks, which, effectively, had been set up to gain tax advantages that the Government had never intended should be available to banks in the first place. Associates were set up to gain tax advantages that would not have been available to the banks themselves.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who said that he would not press his amendment because he accepted that if he removed reference to universities and other such institutions, effectively they would not benefit from the concessions that the Government were going to make. I accept the logic of that argument but do not understand why the hon. Gentleman did not go on to say why he was not prepared to vote for the Opposition's amendment, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). All that it was seeking to do was to extend the concession for a further four years to allow the deliberations and consultations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, between the banks, universities and other higher education institutions, to take place in perhaps a rather more relaxed atmosphere over a longer period.
      Although I can understand that nice noises might be made behind the scenes by the banks to the universities to which they have lent money and which have issued such securities, my worry is that the banks will not come out of the negotiations without an element of profit for themselves. Perhaps they would be prepared to terminate the arrangements in a way that would be less costly to the universities and, indeed, if similar discussions take place, to the housing associations as well. Almost certainly, the costs involved in entering into new arrangements and getting out of the current arrangements will be greater than if the institutions had been able to continue with their QISs and deep discount securities for a number of years under the current arrangements with the tax reliefs that are available.
      In other words, even with the Government's concession—even if they allow a breathing space for one year, as a result of which there will be negotiations on new arrangements between the current lenders and the current borrowers, or with new lenders—the costs for the institutions are likely to rise. The problem will then be that inevitably the costs will be passed on to the people who live in the properties that are being built as a result of the security arrangements. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington did not accept that it would be much better for those institutions if they could have five years' breathing space rather than one. That seemed to be the logic of what he was saying. Perhaps he might like to reflect on whether there is still some merit in supporting the Opposition's amendment.
      Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, just so that I can tell him what was going through my mind when I argued my case. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary did very well in his reconsideration in Standing Committee, to be able to offer one year's breathing space. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on it, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect five years, bearing in mind the fact that that would take us well into the next Parliament.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Betts: There are, perhaps, many Conservative Members, although they are not in their places, who would willingly commit this Parliament to measures that go well into the next Parliament and would commit the future Labour Government to things that they may not want to do.
      It is worth going through some of the reasons why housing associations—the area in which I am most interested—are caught in their current position. I do not think that that was the Government's primary intention, and I, like other Opposition Members, accept that the intention was to stop tax abuses by associates of banks. We support that and do not in any way want to undermine it. The arrangements for housing associations have great merit, one of which is that they are long term. By its very nature, building homes is a long-term venture and one needs long-term funding arrangements. To have to scrap one's arrangements and within a year renegotiate alternative arrangements naturally puts the borrower at a distinct disadvantage. The properties are already there. Those involved have to fund them somehow. They are not entering into funding negotiations with free hands, for a new estate of houses. The houses are already there. They need the funding to continue to pay for their properties. That puts them at a distinct disadvantage. Long-term arrangements are important to organisations in that position.
      I refer to an important comment that was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about the nature of private sector finance. Many organisations—many are local authorities—that have tried to get involved in those arrangements will say that the greatest problem has nothing to do with ideology or negotiations between the public and private sector—where there is a proper and understood level playing field, and where organisations can sit around a table and come to arrangements to their mutual advantage—but is uncertainty. Most of that uncertainty is created not by the markets but by Government.
      Those institutions do not know from one year to the next what the Government's taxation policy will be. They do not understand from a local government perspective, or, indeed, from a housing association perspective, what their vires will be. Will they have powers to do things or will they not? Governments so often change their position on those matters that it is difficult not only for the public sector but for the private sector, if they want to enter into negotiations and make arrangements of a long-term nature, to do so when they are not sure of the position that their partners will be in vis-à-vis Government policy at any one moment. That is a real problem. When the Government change their position from year to year, the financial forward plan for private and public partnerships is undermined and simply does not get off the ground in any meaningful way. That issue comes up time and again,

      1547
      and the accountants involved in such ventures warn how the Government operate. I hope that the Government will learn a few lessons from that in future.
      Associations have also entered into various deals; in many cases, the deals are index-linked, which suits housing associations, because their rental stream tends to go up over time as inflation takes it upwards. It is sensible to link the rental stream to a form of borrowing that is also index-linked. It is good planning and sound common sense. There are tax advantages, which, of course, make the deals attractive, but their very nature is attractive to organisations seeking to invest in a product with a long life and with an income stream that rises on a similar basis to the cost of their borrowing. Initially, tax advantages accrue to associates of banks. When they reach deals with housing associations, at least the majority of those advantages tend to be passed on to the associations and their borrowers.
      In Committee, the Financial Secretary said that—although, superficially, many such deals were index-linked, the accumulated interest being paid and taxed only after a discount for inflation—a number of side deals were done. A "shadow" arrangement operated, allowing the interest rate that would otherwise have been charged—perhaps a rate linked to LIBOR, the London inter-bank offer rate—to be assessed and the difference to be paid back to the lenders. They would receive a return as if they were conducting a straightforward deal, but the deal was dressed up to enable tax reliefs to accrue.
      I agree that that happens in many deals, but the Government are not seeking to outlaw such arrangements. They do not wish to abolish QISs and deep discount securities, or to abolish the tax reliefs that are available in conjunction with side deals. They merely wish to abolish such deals when they are conducted by associates of banks. Their stated policy is to encourage the development of a bond market with other institutions, and, presumably, to encourage the practices to which I have referred: that is how institutions enter the market, make profits and make their lending attractive to organisations that wish to borrow. As I said, the Government do not oppose the side deals in principle; they oppose them only when they are conducted by associates of banks.
      It is not the banks that will suffer as a result of the Government's proposals, however; it is the housing associations that will suffer. Most of the deals, while giving associations the benefit of tax relief while they exist, also include clauses stating that the associations—and, of course, universities—must pick up the costs if a deal is unravelled or tax relief is not available.
      The Government should question the morality of the penalty that they are imposing. I understand that, in the case of housing associations, all such deals must receive consent from the Housing Corporation. Every deal has been approved by a quango: Government appointees have vetted those deals and given them their blessing. I think it wrong for housing associations to enter into such deals—deals that the Government support in principle, despite their reservations about the involvement of associates of banks; deals that have been approved by the Housing Corporation.
      Indeed, I understand that some of those deals have been approved by the Treasury. I consider it questionable, halfway through a deal that has been approved by the
      1548
      Treasury, to change the ground rules—in effect, retrospectively—so that the tax reliefs on which the borrowers were counting are no longer available: in fact, to tear up the deal.
      I understand and support the Government's main intention, but I feel that the organisations involved need a longer breathing space. Will the Government consider allowing five years for the continuation of arrangements entered into before the Budget announcement? I am not talking about new arrangements. Perhaps a longer period could be allowed in the case of deals that currently involve more than five years, which is the minimum in many cases. It is the minimum in the case of QISs, for instance, to make the deals worth while. Organisations need time to think about their future, to begin negotiations with banks and other institutions and perhaps to seek opportunities for the development of alternative markets as other institutions enter the field. The deals involved are complicated, and unravelling them overnight would be damaging.
      We have cited rent levels in the past. Increases have been assessed by various organisations, which have produced figures ranging from £14 to £40 a week in the case of schemes caught by the arrangements that I have described. The amount depends on the finances of the organisations involved, and the way in which the deals were structured. If the Government are concerned about losing their own tax income, however, I think that what I said in Committee is still pertinent. The Nationwide building society, which produced some assessments for me, concluded that, as 78 per cent. of housing association tenants are in receipt of housing benefit and as the full cost of any rent increase resulting from the unscrambling of deals would fall on the Exchequer rather than the tenants, the Government will not gain the full benefit of any tax returns by reducing tax reliefs connected with the schemes.
      The Nationwide's calculations show that in the case of 78 per cent. of tenants, the Government would lose £23 a year as a result of the difference between the tax savings and the extra benefit that they would have to pay out. Of course, in the case of tenants not in receipt of housing benefit, the Government will gain the full impact of the extra income tax that they receive, but at the expense of a widening of the poverty gap—at the expense of those who must pay the full amount of rent.
      Let me return to the issue of other financial institutions. The Government seem to be saying that if other institutions wish to enter the market and issue securities, it will be possible for housing associations and, indeed, universities to switch their borrowing to those institutions—building societies, perhaps—and enter into arrangements, through QISs and discount securities, allowing them to gain the benefits that they currently gain from schemes involving associates of banks.
      As has been pointed out to me by people involved in such markets, however, the problem is that they take some time to develop. It takes time for those in the other financial institutions that I mentioned to understand fully the way in which housing associations work, and to feel that they understand that well enough to lend on the basis on which banks have been prepared to lend on the past.
      Associates of banks, and banks themselves, are currently the main lenders in the market. I suggest that, if other institutions were as willing to lend, they would already be in the market and lending. The five-year period proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East would allow a little extra time—in regard to existing

      1549
      schemes—for other institutions to enter the market and offer alternatives to housing associations and universities, which could accept them on the same or similar terms to their current arrangements with associates of banks, which would have to be terminated on their current terms.
      The problem at present is that those involved in the markets do not understand the nature and operations of housing associations because they have not lent to them regularly. It is therefore difficult to secure sufficient private sector funds to cover the cost of a scheme. As I pointed out in Committee, the cost of building most rented accommodation is not reflected in the valuation of such property when it is first built: the open-market valuation is likely to be only about 75 per cent. of the building cost.
      Banks, because they understand housing associations, are currently prepared to lend on the basis of a fairly advantageous valuation-to-debt ratio, but many other institutions that do not know as much about housing associations are prepared to lend only on a ratio of around 150 per cent.—sometimes even higher. If the valuation-to-debt ratio on which the other institutions are prepared to lend is higher than 150, because of the relatively low ratio of valuation to building cost, the amount of the building cost that institutions are prepared to advance will be less than 50 per cent.
      As we all know, one of the Government's policies in the past few years has been to reduce the amount of housing association grant that they pay on schemes, thus implicitly telling associations to increase their private finance. If the only institutions that can enter into such arrangements are not prepared to lend as much as banks—if they are prepared to lend less than 50 per cent. of the cost of building properties—that, along with the reduction in HAG, means that there may well be a gap in the funding arrangements for new housing schemes. If that gap exists, not only will rents will go up, but new schemes will not be built. That is a problem.
      We are saying that there is a real difficulty for housing associations. We accept the main thrust of what the Government are trying to do, and that associates of banks have been manipulating securities for their own advantage. We want to close tax loopholes. We do not want to be seen to be stopping the Government in trying to achieve that. However, if the consequence is that housing association rents will rise steeply and that, at the same time, other institutions will have insufficient time to come into the market and start lending to associations so that there is no funding gap between HAG and private finance, would not it be better for the Government to stop, reflect and give a little more breathing space?
      5 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East made a good case. He did not seek to undermine the impact of what the Government are trying to achieve, or to allow new schemes to get off the ground with associates of banks using the arrangements that have been available in the past. The Government should recognise that it is wrong to say to housing associations, in the middle of those arrangements, that they have only one year and that, in that year, they must either pick up the full cost of changes in the tax position under schemes' penalty clauses, or go around looking for another borrower, who may not be available on anything like the same advantageous terms.
      1550
      The proposal will cost housing associations and their tenants dear. A bit of reflection and a small extension of the period during which the pre-Budget arrangements may continue would be of enormous benefit and would lead to little cost to the Exchequer. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give serious consideration to that.
      Mr. Hoon: I shall endeavour not to repeat the many excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He has clearly shown the essential problem addressed by amendment No. 86—the difficulty faced by housing associations and universities in adjusting to the new tax regime that was established by the Government amendment, which was accepted in Committee.
      The position was well set out by the Financial Secretary in Committee. Essentially, we are dealing with a relatively small number of institutions that have taken advantage of a tax position created by the Government. About a dozen housing associations have borrowed about £150 million, and a dozen universities have borrowed about £300 million. Each of those institutions acted in good faith on the basis of tax arrangements in force at the time.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) fairly accepted that, if we are to promote arrangements between the public and private sectors, consistency of tax treatment is essential. That is precisely what the Financial Secretary said repeatedly in Committee. He said that the Government wanted
      "to encourage private borrowings by universities and housing associations. That is the thrust of our policy."
      I should grateful if, in reviewing the thrust of Government policy over a considerable period, he made it clear whether he really believes that the consistency advocated by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has been borne out in the way in which the Government have treated, in particular, housing associations and universities.
      The nature of those two institutions dictates that what they do is in the longer term. Universities do not build student accommodation simply for this year and the next. They build such accommodation over a prolonged period. That must also be the case with housing associations, whose primary focus is aimed at providing accommodation for families and for people who are not in a position to buy their own accommodation. Such work cannot be turned on and turned off as easily as the Government might suggest.
      If that in any way suggests that I am being critical of the Government's position, I should emphasise how much I agreed with the Financial Secretary in Committee, when he said:
      "I see some force in the argument that the immediate commencement envisaged in the Bill, backdated to the Budget, could cause disruption to the short-term financial plans of the institutions and a consequent risk of avoidable damage to our objectives both in social housing and higher education."
      That is right. That is why he fairly delayed the implementation of the Government's original proposal until 1 April next year.
      That was a concession. I am not arguing against that, but consistent with the Financial Secretary's comments in Committee, I wonder whether, on reflection, he feels that

      1551
      the concession is sufficient to allow housing associations and universities to adjust their finance. I should be grateful if he dealt with that point. In Committee, he said:
      "That will give them a breathing space in which to reconsider their financial arrangements and, if they wish, to unwind the borrowings caught by the clause."
      What investigations have he and the Government made of the practicalities of unwinding financial arrangements for long-term capital commitments in a relatively short time? I seriously wonder whether it is practically possible to unwind financial arrangements in the way that he suggested in Committee. That could not be done without a considerable cost to both housing associations and universities.
      Labour Members have said that their concern is the cost to students and to housing association tenants in the form of higher rents. I hope that the Financial Secretary did not make those comments off the cuff to get out of the difficulty in Committee, but that the Government have investigated the ability of both housing associations and universities to unwind borrowings caught by the clause. If not, I assume that the Financial Secretary will accept the logic of what he said previously—that it is right that universities and housing associations should be given a proper period in which to adjust their borrowings.
      That proper period was touched on in Committee by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe to explain why he was not able today to support the thrust of the Opposition amendment. The hon. Gentleman intervened on the Financial Secretary in Committee and made it clear that
      "a year's breathing space … is not adequate to deal with the situation."
      I was delighted to discover that he had made his position so clear in Committee. I hope that, in considering the amendment, he will accept that perhaps five years is a more sensible period in which to allow housing associations and universities to adjust their arrangements. If he does not accept the amendment's logic, he will be forced to vote for the year's grace that he said would be inadequate. I hope that, being a man of great consistency, he will follow through his position in Committee and support the amendment.
      In the context of that debate, I hope that the Financial Secretary will think carefully about the matter. During the debate, he said that he saw no technical difference between the borrowings of housing associations and universities, and any other borrowing caught by clause 77. I hope that, in considering the matter fairly, as I am sure he will, he will recognise that, although technical differences may not exist, there are practical consequences for both housing associations and universities.
      I hope that the Financial Secretary will not rely on the point that he went on to make in Committee, that housing associations and universities should have been on notice that they borrowed those moneys under arrangements that might be changed. He said:
      "That might have flashed up some warning signals to the housing associations when they entered into such an agreement that there was a possibility that the tax regime would change, with the result that they would have to bear the costs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 February 1995; c. 426-27.]
      1552
      Of course, that is precisely what has happened and it has happened because the Government sought to change the rules, originally retrospectively for housing associations and universities. However, I am pleased that the Government at least thought that the retrospective element should not apply in this instance.
      The type of comment that I have just cited is most unhelpful in promoting arrangements between the public and private sectors. It is precisely such observations that cause nervous anxieties among those who are contemplating entering into such financial arrangements. If bodies think that, when the Government change the rules, they will say that they—the bodies—should have been on notice that the rules could change, it is less likely that any arrangements will be entered into. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not press the argument too far.
      Clearly, we all agree that arrangements between the public and private sectors are necessary. It is also necessary that they should be fair and sensible and not "tax driven and artificial", an expression that the Financial Secretary used repeatedly in his defence of the change. However, as he is a fair-minded man, I hope that he will recognise that the changes should not have adverse, short-term consequences for institutions such as universities and housing associations. I hope that he will also recognise that if he accepted amendment No. 86, he would be providing a proper period in which such institutions could adjust their finances and make proper provision for the people whom they serve.
      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: We are not arguing about a matter of principle, because we agree with the Government's proposals to close the loopholes, but difficulties arise for bodies such as universities and housing associations during the transitional period. The Government are suggesting 12 months, whereas we feel that five years would be more advantageous.
      Universities in particular are having difficulty with funding and have had to reduce the number of courses. The university of Bradford is having tremendous problems reassessing the courses that it provides, and I imagine that others face the same difficulties. The Minister said in Committee that the Government were not attacking universities or housing associations, but, ultimately, the costs will have to be picked up by students and tenants.
      The difference between the Opposition and the Government centres on the period that we consider reasonable for such institutions to be able to develop a way out of the problem. A breathing space of 12 months is inadequate, as my hon. Friends said so eloquently. I hope that the Financial Secretary will reconsider.
      Housing Corporation funding for small housing associations has been reduced and many of them are in difficulties. If the Government are interested in efficiency and cost, I should have thought that they would try to support such organisations. The case for the amendment has been well made, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will take on board what has been said and stretch the breathing space to a more reasonable period.
      Ms Margaret Hodge: I have a number of non-pecuniary interests that I must declare at the outset. I chair Circle 33, one of the major housing associations in London, and I am also on the governing body of the

      1553
      London School of Economics and that of the university of London. I must apologise for not having heard some of the earlier contributions.
      This is a sensible amendment that should be accepted by the Government because it would achieve their purpose of ensuring that we get effective private finance into some of the projects undertaken by public sector institutions. I think that the Government are cutting off their nose to spite their face in this instance, because their proposals will have a detrimental effect on their pursuit of their objective.
      Had the Government consulted rather more widely, they might have avoided the adverse impact that their proposals will have on a number of higher education institutions and housing associations. Housing associations and universities have used these instruments to borrow, not to avoid taxation liabilities but to pursue their perfectly legitimate objectives. I hope that the Financial Secretary will accept that.
      When housing associations first used these instruments in about 1989, they sought permission from the Government's own agency—the Housing Corporation—in the form of a section 9 consent. Instead of legislating retrospectively, it would have been appropriate for the Government to tell the Housing Corporation at that point that they thought that these forms of deep discount securities and loans were not appropriate.
      5.15 pm
      With his previous hat on, I think that the Financial Secretary will remember that, at that time, the Housing Corporation undertook a thorough investigation. Indeed, I should be surprised if he were not party to that investigation into the structure of the loans when housing associations first entered into them. Having given consent only four or five years ago and allowed housing associations to enter into such loans, it is not good practice for the Government now to cause housing associations additional financial problems by stopping them having the advantages provided by the loans.
      Also at that time, other public bodies examined the nature of these loans. The Department of Health considered some of those where housing associations were working with health authorities, and the Treasury ensured that it was happy with the way in which the loan structures were established. At that point, no one said that such schemes were wrong or accused housing associations or universities of avoiding tax. However, by changing retrospectively the tax liabilities of such organisations, the Government are ending up with private bodies meeting public purposes.
      The LSE, with which I am connected, has, through deep discount and qualifying index securities, raised about £30 million of which it has spent £16 million on new residences and £14 million on purchasing and refurbishing academic buildings. If higher education institutions cease to have the tax advantages that they currently enjoy, they will no longer be able to supply the student bed spaces that are absolutely crucial for people attending courses in inner London.
      Since 1989, the housing associations have used about£130mllion: £80 million through deep discount loans—the Treasury would now lose the interest on the tax—and £50 million through qualifying index securities.
      1554
      Housing associations and higher education institutions should have sufficient time to unravel their loans if they are not to suffer an adverse impact from the early introduction of the Government's proposals. I think that all parties agree with the attempt to get private finance into public bodies, and I should be astounded if the Financial Secretary were to reject such a reasonable amendment.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): This has been a thoughtful debate and it follows an equally thoughtful debate in Committee on the equivalent of clause 81.
      There is a measure of agreement among all parties. No one is arguing that housing associations and universities should be caught as from Budget day, which is the case with every other borrower affected by clause 81, and no one has argued today that housing associations and universities should be wholly exempt for ever and a day.
      The debate has focused on whether the concession already announced by the Government—to postpone the impact until April next year—is the right one or whether we should have agreed to the longer one proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), which expires in the year 2000. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said that we should have consulted, but as I think that I explained in Committee, if one is looking at anti-avoidance—this is an anti-avoidance measure—it is, by definition, difficult to consult in advance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) made a thoughtful speech. I pay tribute to his work as an intermediary between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Government, for his active interest in the subject and for the positive proposals which he has put to the Government to take some of the tension out of the change which is now under discussion.
      I take very much to heart what my hon. Friend said about the private finance initiative. I was interested to see, as I am sure was he, that the university of Lancaster has recently launched £35 million of 30-year debenture stock, which is to be listed on the stock exchange. Press reports show that it will pay interest at a fixed rate on a quarterly basis, that it is a public issue to a range of subscribers and that it is otherwise on quite straightforward terms. That is exactly the grain of what my hon. Friend talked about: genuine private finance initiative.
      The features of the university of Lancaster launch are very different from those that we have discovered in clause 81. I take very much to heart what my hon. Friend said about—where it is reasonable so to do—promoting certainty and stability. If one is to do that, the designers of the schemes will equally have to put their cards on the table. If the Government proceed with the policy of pre-transaction rulings, an element of certainty will be injected.
      I welcome what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said and I join him in paying tribute to those who work for housing associations.
      Mr. Forman: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not intervening with my usual speed. He has just mentioned the possibility of the Government proceeding on the basis of pre-transaction rulings. So far as I understand the view of the university world, such an

      1555
      approach would be very helpful. If he can build on that, it would go some way towards meeting the concerns which have been expressed by all hon. Members.
      Sir George Young: We have already made some progress with post-transaction rulings and we have it in mind to issue—we hope—a consultative document on pre-transaction rulings later this year.
      The hon. Member for Springburn, as I said, paid tribute to those in his constituency who work for housing associations and I join his tribute. I also recognise the good work done by many universities, which hon. Members have mentioned.
      On the private finance initiative, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington to an article in the Financial Times for the weekend of 25 and 26 March, because it is exactly in line with what he was advocating. It said:
      "Other universities are still likely to follow"—
      the university of Lancaster—
      "as continued expansion in student numbers puts pressure on them to borrow for capital projects."
      There is reference to some 12 other universities which are still considering taking part in the initial launch. The move that my hon. Friend advocated is now under way and the Government will certainly play their part in accelerating it.
      Clause 81 is directed at a growing trend for lending by banking groups to be packaged as a bilateral issue of debt securities, which are structured, often in a highly artificial way, to secure a tax advantage. The advantage goes to the lender, but part of the benefit passes to the borrower in the form of a reduced cost of borrowing. The clause removes the tax advantage. Although the first-round effect is to increase the tax liabilities of the lenders, the terms of the deals, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) referred, are such that they trigger off increases in the borrower's costs to compensate the lenders.
      Perhaps I should explain briefly how the mischief that concerns us works in practice. Suppose a borrower wishes, for example, to borrow £30 million. The borrower issues a zero coupon bond, having a nominal value of £340 million, redeemable in 20 years' time. Instead of offering that issue to the market at large, the borrower issues the whole of it to a purpose-built subsidiary of a bank. The issuer gets an annual tax deduction for its accruing interest obligations, but the holder only pays tax, if at all, when the discount is realised at the bond's maturity or sale. The tax deferral substantially reduces the holder's effective charge, bringing it below the cost of conventional lending.
      In addition, in many of the cases that we have seen, side agreements exist between the issuer and the bank, which allow for the bond to be redeemed on terms quite different from those specified in the terms of the issue. In practice, those side agreements convert the borrowing into London inter-bank offer rate-linked loans and thus conventional bank lending is dressed up in a complex package designed solely to secure a tax advantage that it was never intended to enjoy.
      A wide range of borrowers, including housing associations and universities, have used the techniques addressed by the clause. We received a number of representations, which were discussed at length in Committee, that those particular institutions should be
      1556
      made a special exemption to our proposal. I saw representatives of universities and housing associations and had constructive meetings with them, but we saw no case for exempting them totally, because the techniques used by those institutions are essentially the same as, and just as artificial as, those used by other borrowers.
      I am afraid that it is not a justification for borrowers to say that those particular tax-driven loans should be excused because the funds have been applied to further public policy objectives; rather, it is the contrary. Such institutions already receive substantial support from public funds. It is essential that that should be controlled and allocated between institutions in a disciplined way and not topped up on a self-service basis by recourse to tax-motivated borrowing structures.
      Moreover, failing to act now to close that particular avenue would have given rise to very substantial Exchequer costs, running into hundreds of millions of pounds over time, as universities and housing associations would have every incentive to arrange more and more of their borrowings in that way.
      We did, however, see force in Committee in the argument that an immediate commencement, as in the Bill as first drafted, would disrupt the short-term financial plans of housing associations and universities and so risk avoidable prejudice to our own objectives. So, we suggested that the start date for our proposal should be deferred to 1 April 1996 in the case of pre-Budget borrowing for housing associations and universities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for explaining why, on reflection, the amendment in his name does not secure any particular advantage for universities.
      I shall now turn to amendment No. 86, moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, East. Even if the commencement were deferred for much longer, as the Opposition propose, the significant Exchequer costs would very often go largely as a windfall gain to the banks concerned, rather than increasing the resources available to serve our housing or higher education policies. We estimate that the cost of the amendment would be about £25 million in aggregate, but the housing associations and universities would in total gain much less. I believe that that can only reinforce the case for rejecting such a change. Such an extended deferral would be unjustified on balance, even if the fruits of it flowed through wholly to the borrowers. It makes no sense to do so if they would go to any substantial extent as a benefit to bankers.
      I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe who asked why we were just blocking deals for subsidiaries of the banks. If one looks at the history of the qualifying investment securities rules, one sees that they were designed for genuine public issues to the market. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the side deals, which are a feature of the transactions that we have been discussing, he will conclude that it would be scarcely practicable to issue those artificial side agreements in cases of public issues. It is practicable only when the issue is on a bilateral basis, such as those caught by clause 81. The banks are obviously the main candidates for such deals, but of course we shall look at the matter again if other institutions start using the technique.
      Mr. Betts: Does the Financial Secretary accept that housing associations have tried—as in the case of Lancaster university, which has been successful—to go to

      1557
      the markets for resources in the way that he identified as a possibility, but that the markets have not been secure about lending to housing associations? They simply do not understand the workings of housing associations and universities as well as the banks. It will take some time to build up confidence and an understanding of housing association finance, and it is that period of time which we are trying to buy through the amendment.
      Sir George Young: I am not sure that I buy that argument. As the hon. Gentleman will know, many building societies, for example, lend substantial sums to housing associations. It is not the case that only the banks understand how housing associations work.
      As I was saying, I looked with some sympathy at the problems that confronted housing associations and universities. The concession that the Government have offered is reasonable. There are sound arguments for not going to 2000, not least because the benefit would not go primarily to the universities or housing associations, but would be secured as a windfall gain to the banks. On the basis of those arguments, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The significant aspect of the Financial Secretary's reply was the fact that, although he tried to argue that the housing associations and universities and their tenants would receive less benefit than the banks, he did not attempt to quantify the difference, which suggested to me that he was not altogether confident of his argument.
      We have had a good debate, and I am grateful for the contributions by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), who all showed an excellent appreciation of the importance of the issue both to tenants of housing associations and to university students in affected schemes.
      The Financial Secretary said that we had had a reasonable debate, and indeed it was reasonable. I, too, acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Even he did not argue against our amendment. He said that perhaps he could see why the Government were not prepared to accept it, but I have little doubt that, left to his own devices, he would have wanted to vote with us.
      The debate has been reasonable, and the amendment is reasonable; the only thing that the Government have not given us is a reasonable conclusion. Those who, as a consequence, suffer rent increases, whether in housing association properties or in university accommodation, will know exactly who to blame.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 283.

      Division No. 127]

      [5.30 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Allen, Graham

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Alton, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Battle, John

      1558

      Bayley, Hugh

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bell, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Benton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Berry, Roger

      Gunnell, John

      Betts, Clive

      Hain, Peter

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Hall, Mike

      Blunkett, David

      Hanson, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Bradley, Keith

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Harvey, Nick

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Heppell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hodge, Margaret

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hoey, Kate

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Cann, Jamie

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Chidgey, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Church, Judith

      Hutton, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clelland, David

      Jamieson, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Janner, Greville

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keen, Alan

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Terry

      Denham, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dewar, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dobson, Frank

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dowd, Jim

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McAllion, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McCartney, Ian

      Eastham, Ken

      Macdonald, Calum

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McGrady, Eddie

      Fatchett, Derek

      McKelvey, William

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      MacShane, Denis

      Foulkes, George

      McWilliam, John

      Fraser, John

      Madden, Max

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Alice

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mandelson, Peter

      Galloway, George

      Marek, Dr John

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Garrett, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      George, Bruce

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Martlew, Eric

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Maxton, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Meacher, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Meale, Alan

      1559

      Michael, Alun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Milburn, Alan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Short, Clare

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Simpson, Alan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Snape, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Murphy, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Stott, Roger

      O'Hara, Edward

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Olner, Bill

      Straw, Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pearson, Ian

      Timms, Stephen

      Pendry, Tom

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don

      Pike, Peter L

      Trimble, David

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tyler, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Randall, Stuart

      Watson, Mike

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Redmond, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Reid, Dr John

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rendel, David

      Wilson, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wise, Audrey

      Rogers, Allan

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rooney, Terry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Stephen Byers.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bowis, John

      Amess, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Ancram, Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ashby, David

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Atkins, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Butcher, John

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Butler, Peter

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Bates, Michael

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chapman, Sydney

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Booth, Hartley

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      1560

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Congdon, David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

      Jack, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan-Smith, lain

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, Sir David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Legg, Barry

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Faber, David

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishbum, Dudley

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      French, Douglas

      Malone, Gerald

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Gallie, Phil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Merchant, Piers

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mills, lain

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hague, William

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkstey, Warren

      Page, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Paice, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hendry, Charles

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Horam, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      1561

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Richards, Rod

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Riddick, Graham

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thomason, Roy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Thomton, Sir Malcolm

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thumham, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Towned, John (Bridlington)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sackville, Tom

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tredinnick, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Trend, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Bill N Tayside

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waller, Gary

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sproat, lain

      Wiggin Sir Jerry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stephen, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stem, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sumberg, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Sykes, John

      Mr. David Willetts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 82
      RELIEF FOR POST-CESSATION EXPENDITURE
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 83, line 28, leave out 'substitute' and insert 'insert'.—[Sir George Young.]
    Clause 83

      EMPLOYEE LIABILITIES AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Matthew Carrington: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 84, line 20, at end add 'of insurance'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in page 85, line 49, leave out from '(8)' to end of line 7 on page 86 and insert—
      'Where it would be unlawful in the United Kingdom for a liability of a particular description or costs or expenses of a particular description to be indemnified or paid under or in consequence of a contract of insurance, no deduction may be made under this section in respect of:

      (a) the discharge of any liability of that description;

      (b) any costs or expenses of that description.'.

      1562
      No. 89, in page 86, line 10, at end add—
      '(10)(a) For the purposes of this section where a company ("the first company") effects a contract of insurance extending to any other companies in relation to which it can lawfully effect such contract and that contract would if confined to the first company be a qualifying contract of insurance it shall be a qualifying contract in relation to those other companies also and any liability arising in relation to any or all of those other companies shall if it would be qualifying liability in relation to the first company had it arisen in relation thereto also be a qualifying liability in relation to those other companies.
      (b) This subsection shall apply to any payment made to a taxpayer by the company referred to as the first company in (a) above even if no contract of insurance was actually taken out as envisaged in (a) but would have come within (a) had such contract been taken out'.
      Mr. Carrington: The amendments are designed to clarify some of the problems in clause 83. The clause is very welcome, and the subject with which it deals was debated extensively last year in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has moved a considerable way to meet the needs of industry and the insurance business.
      There are some problems with the clause that worry employers and insurers. My amendments are designed to tease out some explanations of the Government's intentions, and they may highlight some of the problems that are foreseen in the implementation of the clause. My amendments were suggested by the CBI and are supported by the British insurance industry. Consequently, they are designed to clarify some of the difficulties in the minds of employers and insurers.
      I will go through the intention of the amendments briefly; my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may be able to express a view on the intention of the clause in three specific regards. Will he reconsider the clause in the light of experience as it settles down and as the provisions of directors' and officers' liability insurance become more readily used in the market?
      Under clause 83, the insurance contract must be separate for it to qualify for tax relief. Furthermore, the contract must be unconnected with any other contract. The problem is that policies are usually associated with the contract of employment of the individual. That is not so much for the benefit of the employer, but for the protection of the employee so that he has some assurance that his employer has taken out the right insurance cover to enable his interests to be protected.
      As the clause stands, it seems that that would not be permitted. It would be necessary for a company or an employer to take out separate insurance, which seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. I understand that it is important to have some anti-avoidance provision in the clause, but the current wording is unduly restrictive. Is it the Government's intention that employees and employers should take out completely separate insurance policies, or could they still be linked to a contract of employment, which is the normal practice in the industry?
      Amendment No. 88 is designed to clarify the intention of the clause, which at present concentrates on whether it is lawful for an employer to take out insurance. Where it is unlawful for an employer to take out insurance, tax relief will clearly not be available. The amendment is designed to carry on excluding uninsurable liabilities and liabilities against which it is illegal to insure. It is possible to imagine a situation where an employer would not be able to take out insurance for one reason or another. The

      1563
      employer might not be able to do so for legal reasons as much as for anything else but, because of the nature of the liability being insured, the employee could take out insurance in his or her name.
      As the clause stands, it appears that if an employer cannot take out insurance, an employee cannot do so in his or her name either. The employee would, therefore, lose the tax deductibility. Clearly, that is undesirable in the sense that an employee would want cover against the risks and, regardless of the position of the employer, should be able to have that cover as though he or she were any other employee of the organisation.
      My amendment is designed to enable that to happen. It moves the restriction from the nature of the employer to the nature of the insurable risk. If the risk is one against which it is illegal to insure, it would not qualify for tax deduction. If it is legal but the employer cannot legally insure against it, the employee could still do so.
      I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify the Government's intentions and say whether my interpretation of the clause is correct, or whether the insurance industry is being unduly pessimistic in its interpretation.
      Amendment No. 89 is much more simple and covers the problem caused by groups of companies. It is not unusual for employees of the parent company in a group, or of one of its subsidiaries, to be paid by the company that directly employs them, but to serve as a director or in other capacities with other group companies on an unpaid basis. Nevertheless, they take on responsibilities that mean that they should be able to cover themselves with directors' and officers' liability insurance. As the clause stands, it appears that the group would not be able to take out insurance cover for employees on a group-wide basis. Each subsidiary would have to take out separate insurance to cover the one employee who might have multifarious responsibilities throughout the group. I am thinking of a group of companies in which a director of the main board might be employed by and paid as a director of that board, but might serve as a director on any number of other boards in the group. It would seem ridiculous for the subsidiary companies to have to take out separate insurance.
      If my interpretation of clause 83 is correct, it seems unduly restrictive. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary could clarify whether that was the intention and my interpretation is correct or whether the industry is again unduly concerned and has no real reason to worry.
      I am aware that the problems that I have highlighted are problems of detail in a clause that is greatly welcomed and will simplify the situation for directors' and officers' liability insurance. I am looking for some reassurance and comments from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Implementation of the clause is likely to be somewhat complex within the insurance industry, however, and I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will ensure that his officials work closely with the industry during the implementation period to ensure smooth running and to ensure that any unforeseen problems are sorted out with the minimum of difficulty.
      1564
      Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, if problems cannot be sorted out and it is felt that the clause is unduly restrictive to the insurance industry or employers, the Inland Revenue will keep the matter under review and that, if the problems need to be rectified and legislation is the only means of doing so, necessary legislation will be introduced in next year's Finance Bill?
      The clause is widely welcomed. The Government have gone a long way towards meeting the worries of employers in the insurance industry, but I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could put the final bells and whistles on an otherwise excellent measure.
      Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) for his comments on clause 83 and for the role that he played in getting the reform on to the statute book. I will briefly try to put some bells and whistles on the clause.
      I will deal with the three amendments in the order in which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham did so. I understand his concern that the provisions regarding connected contracts might have been drawn too widely. They are drafted to prevent abuse of the new relief. One obvious example would be when two insurance contracts are taken out, but only one relates to liability insurance and the premiums on the liability insurance policy are artificially weighted to inflate the amount that qualifies for relief.
      Amendment No. 87 would still permit those anti-avoidance provisions to operate if both connected policies were contracts of insurance. We have carefully considered whether we could accept the limitation that my hon. Friend proposes, but I am afraid that there would still be scope for abuse of the relief by using contracts other than insurance contracts. For example, an insurance company might provide free cars or holidays for directors of a company under one contract, in return for an inflated premium for liability insurance taken out by the client company for its directors under a connected non-insurance contract. Such arrangements are by no means inconceivable.
      The approach of preventing abuse via connected contracts generally, and not merely via contracts of insurance, is precisely that adopted under the private medical insurance relief that we introduced, which has been operating successfully.
      I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham that the provisions are not intended to disqualify insurance contracts taken out alongside a director's or employee's ordinary contract of employment. I have already given my hon. Friend such an assurance in correspondence and I am happy to repeat it to the House. That approach will be incorporated in guidance about the relief, which the Inland Revenue will issue in due course.
      I cannot recommend that the House should accept amendment No. 87, but I hope that the assurances that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham about the way in which the provision will be interpreted will help to meet the concerns that he expressed.
      I understand my hon. Friend's continuing concern about the provisions covered by amendment No. 88. He raised the matter in a debate on a similar amendment in Committee and has since been good enough to write to me on the subject. I hope to be able to show that the provision as drafted already meets our policy objectives and to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.

      1565
      The guiding principle in clause 83 is to give relief for all work-related liabilities, costs or expenses that can be insured against lawfully. It would be wrong to give relief for costs arising from criminal convictions, so fines and penalties imposed on a director or an employee for a criminal offence, which cannot legally be insured against on public policy grounds, will not be within the scope of this relief. The costs of defending a criminal case, however—whether or not the defence is successful—are lawfully insurable and will be covered under the new relief.
      The clause rules out any contract of insurance covering liabilities, costs or expenses into which it is unlawful for a person—an employer—to enter. In contrast, amendment No. 88 would consider the legality of the indemnity against the liabilities, costs or expenses. The approach in the existing provision is preferable because it may not be simple to decide whether an indemnity per se against the liabilities, costs or expenses is lawful, irrespective of who has entered into the contract. It is relatively straightforward, however, to decide whether the person entering into the contract, such as a company, has done so lawfully. Moreover, that is the approach adopted in the Companies Acts and Building Societies Acts as regards whether a company or building society may lawfully purchase and maintain liability insurance for its directors or officers.
      That general issue was the subject of debate in Committee. Since then, a further concern has been raised with the Inland Revenue about the scope of the term "unlawful" in this context. That is, whether it would rule out contracts which, although not generally illegal, may be outside the scope of an employing company's powers as set out in its articles of association or internal rules. I am advised that that is not the intention of the provision, nor will it be interpreted by the Inland Revenue in that way. What would be at issue, if the point arose, would be the lawfulness of the contract under UK law generally. I hope that this will provide reassurance for my hon. Friend. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
      I understand that amendment No. 89 seeks to ensure that relief would apply in situations that typically involve a group of companies, where liability insurance is taken out by one company for the group. I reassure my hon. Friend that clause 83 already achieves that, so I do not recommend that the House adopts it.
      Clause 83 gives relief for directors and employees, regardless of who effects the contract of insurance. Thus, relief is available where one company in a group takes out insurance covering the employees of another company in the same group, or where an unrelated third party effects the insurance contract. Similarly, where an individual incurs expenditure on uninsured liabilities relating to his work, and that is reimbursed, any tax charge would be cancelled by the relief provided by the clause.
      6 pm
      For example, an employee or director working for several group companies on whose behalf sums were paid out under a policy covering the whole group for a liability that he had incurred from his employment with one company would betreated as receiving emoluments of that amount from that company. But that would be
      1566
      matched, under the relief provided by the clause, by a tax deduction against those emoluments of an equivalent amount.
      In respect of the last two assurances for which my hon. Friend asked, of course we shall keep the matter under review as it beds down and my officials will continue to work closely with representatives of the insurance companies and others, with whom they already enjoy a close relationship. Against that background, I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel moved to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. His reassurances will be welcomed by the industry. As there will inevitably be some lingering doubts about how the clause will work in practice, I am glad that the issue will be kept under review. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 86

      DEFERMENT OF BALANCING CHARGES IN RESPECT OF SHIPS
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 91, line 48, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 92, line 23, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 4, in clause 88, page 96, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 5, in page 96, line 37, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 6, in page 96, line 47, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      Mr. Waterson: As I did in Committee, I declare a sort of interest, in that I am a solicitor who, for many years, has specialised in maritime law. Sadly, the number of British clients for whom I have worked over the years has steadily declined.
      The original announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was much welcomed, not only by myself and other hon. Members who support the cause of British shipping, but by all the major British shipping organisations. It is, however, important to get the details right and ensure that roll-over relief is as available as possible to a wide cross-section of British shipping.
      I pay tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who is in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—the latter is also in his place—for putting forward the arguments for British shipping, not only this year but in previous years, and to all other right hon. and hon. Members who take a similar view.
      The amendment that I originally proposed in Committee sought to make roll-over relief available for a period of seven years. That has become a period of six years in the amendments before us. In any case, it is designed to be a significant improvement on the original period of three years announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. His announcement was that capital allowance balancing charges for ships would be allowed to roll over for a period of up to three years from

      1567
      the date on which a ship was disposed of, and that that would be set off against subsequent expenditure on ships within that period. He said:
      "competitively, tax measures available overseas put our ship owners at a particular disadvantage".
      I echo those words today.
      Most ships have a long and useful working life, in some cases significantly more than 20 years. When an owner trades a ship on the charter market, particularly the spot market, commercial success in the long run often depends on the crucial decision of when to buy or sell that asset. By introducing roll-over relief in this form, the Government recognised the need to help British shipowners to make rational decisions of that sort—when to buy and when to sell—based not on the need to avoid taxes but on commercial considerations and market expectations.
      That is the nub of the issue. At three years, the period of the relief was simply not long enough to allow a totally rational decision to be made based on the state of the market at that time. In some circumstances, it would encourage British shipowners to make tax avoidance decisions rather than profit-maximising and investment decisions.
      Cycles in the shipping market extend well beyond three years. To recognise the harsh realities of the international shipping market, UK shipowners must be allowed to exploit shipping cycles in exactly the same way as their major competitors in other countries, such as Greece, do year in, year out, and invest in ships when the market dictates rather than prematurely because of those considerations. I am delighted that, as a result of those discussions and representations, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has listened and is prepared to accept the amendments.
      May I put down a marker for two related issues, which were touched on in Committee and may be matters for on-going discussions with the Chamber of Shipping and in the House in future years? The first is group relief. Modern shipping is based on groups of companies and lending institutions' need for so called "clean" companies, or when new buildings are bought via their original owning company. Currently, only the same company that has sold a vessel is permitted to use roll-over relief for new investment. That is unduly restrictive.
      The second issue is that of foreign connected parties. International groups are typical in shipping. Naturally, robust precautions are necessary against abuse, but to force a shipowner to invest in unconnected tonnage when his group has something more commercially desirable to do would be unproductive and uncommercial—in short, a distortion.
      British shipping is not a sunset industry looking for handouts from the taxpayer. All it asks is the removal of unfair advantages enjoyed by its foreign competitors, or measures to match those advantages. A vibrant, successful and growing British fleet is not only an absolute good in itself but an essential underpinning for the continued success of the City of London, the British economy and Britain's defences.
      Ms Hilary Armstrong: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his persistence and determination to turn the
      1568
      Government's mind. It is interesting to note that, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the Government intend to concede, we will have managed to have concessions in almost every part of the Bill. That is remarkable for a Finance Bill. It suggests a listening Government who are slightly anxious about things.
      I notice that one of the signatories to the amendment, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), is not in his seat. However, we read in the newspapers this morning where he would be at 6 o'clock this evening—meeting the Chancellor, arguing for tax cuts. The way in which Conservative Members cope with, on the one hand, arguing for tax cuts and, on the other hand, arguing for increased public expenditure is interesting. We welcome the hon. Member for Dover to those contradictions. Perhaps it is politic of me to say no more about that.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne on his determination to improve the ability of shipping organisations to increase the number of ships built in this country, for which the Opposition have fought hard. We have also argued, and will continue to argue, for an increase in the number of merchant seamen who come from this country. Both those issues are important to us.
      My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) has argued vociferously on both those issues, as have two of my neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown).
      My hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend and for Stoke-on-Trent, North are both in their seats. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is not here. He spent many a long year and many a long hour on the Finance Bill, and he is beginning to wonder what on earth has happened that has meant that this year, since he ceased to be a member of the Finance Bill Committee, we have managed to wrench so many concessions out of the Government. There may be a lesson somewhere in that.
      The crucial importance of these yearly debates has been that they have taken place while merchant shipping in this country has deteriorated significantly. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East have witnessed the real effect of the deterioration of British merchant shipping and British Navy shipping; they have witnessed the demise of shipbuilding on the Tyne in the region that they represent.
      The arrival in Southampton this week of the magnificent new cruise ship, Oriana, was heralded by cries of, "Why did that ship have to be built outside the United Kingdom?" It was also heralded by statements by shipowners that they believed that never again would a ship of such size be built in British waters.
      It is an incredible indictment of the Government that it is now being said that this country, which at one time was able to build the finest ships in the world and was noted for them throughout the world, will not be able to build ships of that nature in future. We have the skills and the expertise, we have the rivers, but we now no longer have the capacity in our yards to do that type of work. It is a tragedy, and the Government will for ever be indicted for that legacy.
      I am delighted that the Government have conceded—I understand that the Minister is to concede—on these amendments. However, I would ask the Minister what he estimates will be the cost to the public purse of the

      1569
      concessions, and what the Government will do to monitor their effect. There are two criteria against which Opposition Members believe that any concessions should be judged—first, the increase in the number of ships that are built in British yards and, secondly, the increase in the number of merchant seamen who come from the United Kingdom.
      Concessions from the British taxpayer are important if they are able to produce increased productivity for British shipyards and increased activity for British merchant seamen. It is important that, if we are agreeing increased money from the British taxpayer, we know that that money will be used in the right way and will be spent on meeting those ends.
      What steps will the Financial Secretary take to monitor progress? In Committee, the Government argued both that such a change was not necessary and that, if those concessions were made—certainly the second one—they might amount to a tax loophole. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any other opinions that do not relate to the fact that five Conservative Back Benchers have signed the amendment, and whether it was that or the arguments that persuaded them. I am sure that it was the arguments, and I am sure that the Minister would not be tempted to admit that it was anything else.
      6.15 pm
      Shipping is in a poor condition. We have an enormous amount to make up. I hope that the Government are seriously considering how they can ensure that more ships are built in British yards and that there is a resurgence in the British merchant shipping industry.
      We welcome the concessions that the Minister is making, but I hope that he will monitor them to ensure that they will herald a resurgence in British shipping.
      Sir Terence Higgins: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on the way in which he has pursued those matters in Committee and on moving the amendment. I hope that I shall be able to congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment that he has moved.
      I would add a word or two about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). I spent about seven years in the shipping industry, a considerable time ago. It is important to distinguish between the shipbuilding industry and the shipping industry; the hon. Lady confused the two. Many of the problems from which the shipping industry—that is to say, the ship operators—has suffered have resulted from the extent to which the shipbuilding industry throughout the world has been subsidised and excess capacity created.
      I found it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West should somehow seek to blame the decline in the shipbuilding industry on the present Government, because it took place a long time ago—as long ago as when I was in the ship-operating industry. The reason for the decline was largely the appalling restrictive trade practices that were to be found on the trade union side in that industry. That was what affected the industry.
      As my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will know, especially the Minister of State, Treasury, that matter has been coming up in Finance Bills year after year. It has taken us a very long time to obtain a
      1570
      satisfactory outcome, although I welcome the fact that the Chancellor last year announced that he was going to introduce clauses broadly on the lines of clause 86 and the subsequent clauses, which now extend for more than 11 pages of carefully drafted legislation.
      I very much welcome the fact that, at that stage, the Chancellor had accepted the case for roll-over relief. I was surprised, therefore, to discover from the subsequent statements and the legislation now before us that it was restricted to three years. One knows very well, from one's own experience in the industry, that the cycle in the shipping industry—it is essentially a cyclical industry—extends for much longer than three years. Therefore, the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne moved an amendment to make it six years-which I understand the Government will accept—is very welcome.
      A three-year arrangement would have had little effect, whereas a six-year period gives a reasonable opportunity for British shipowners to reinvest money in line with the market movements in the trade, to be able to sell at the top end of the trade and, one hopes, buy at the bottom end of the cycle.
      I shall add a word or two to what has been said about group relief. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not think that, in asking for group relief, I am being like Oliver Twist and asking for more and more. If one has any regard for the structure of the British shipping industry, group relief must be an intrinsic part of roll-over relief.
      In the same way that making the period three years instead of six would have greatly restricted the roll-over relief, given the industry's structure, not having group relief would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the measure, which I understand my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues now accept. Many shipping companies are one-ship companies and operate as part of a group, with various subsidies. Unless group relief is given, the general relief will be considerably restricted.
      I understand that subsequent discussions with the industry have highlighted some difficult drafting points in relation to group relief. Given the length of time that the matter has been under discussion, that is extraordinary. I should have thought that the issue would have been sorted out before now. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that he will consider the group relief aspect of what is essentially a part of the change in roll-over relief, or its effect will be greatly diminished.
      There has always been another amendment related to the 100 per cent. first year allowances. I accept that it would be difficult for the Government to make that concession as the repercussions in the industry would be considerable—even though it would help the liner trade, whereas the group of amendments that we are discussing largely helps the tramp trade. But if we accept that the Government are not prepared to countenance first year allowances—I well understand the reasons for that—the Government must redouble their efforts to prevent other Governments acting to give their shipping industries a competitive advantage.
      The French still have subsidies for ship investment and fleet modernisation. The Germans give considerable reliefs. In Greece—the most extreme example—shipping companies pay no corporation tax. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be as familiar as I am with

      1571
      the range of devices used by other countries to give their shipping companies a competitive advantage over British shipping.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will cover the group relief issue—which is very much the limit of what the Government have in mind for the shipping industry. My right hon. Friend must redouble his efforts, perhaps at the intergovernmental conference or in negotiations with other European Union countries, to get rid of the appalling discrimination that occurs in other countries, and establish a level playing field.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and hope that the Financial Secretary gives us a positive response.
      Ms Joan Walley: I shall be brief, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and we have to make progress.
      We welcome the concession that we believe the Financial Secretary is about to make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) said, if the concession is made, it will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
      The amendment did not come about by accident, but because a joint campaign has been waged by the trade unions—by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and NUMAST, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—working in partnership with the Chamber of Shipping. The campaign also received cross-party support. It is amazing what can be achieved when there is an ever-reducing number of Conservative Members. There are still people who want to see the shipping industry take advantage of the opportunities that exist worldwide. We want the British industry to take advantage of those opportunities.
      I have a sense of déjagrave vu, because, almost a year ago when we last discussed the subject, it seemed that we would never achieve a breakthrough and persuade the Government to concede the issue of roll-over relief. Those of us who were so involved in the campaign this time last year felt that what happened then was only a beginning.
      If the Government make a concession today, it will be welcome, but just as we have made progress on last year, we should now ensure that there is a close partnership, including not just the Treasury but the Department of Trade and Industry, where there are opportunities to assist new shipbuilding, the Department of Employment, where there are opportunities to create new jobs for British seafarers, and the Department of Transport, where there is currently a debate on transport.
      We must put shipping at the centre of transport policy, and see what opportunities exist. I want the concession to be not a once-and-for-all concession, but the start of a transport policy that recognises the role of British shipping and the part that British seafarers have to play in that role.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) wanted to help British shipping, it is a shame that she did not support the proposal for an open register made last year.
      1572
      I declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Baltic exchange. While my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) argues largely on behalf of the Chamber of Shipping, the Baltic exchange speaks for the service sector of the British maritime sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) spoke of the difference between shipowning and shipbuilding. There is a third element: the service sector, which exists behind London as a maritime centre.
      While the British fleet is small—I suspect that the overall cost of the amendment would not be huge—the maritime sector in the City of London is large. It comprises brokers, bankers, lawyers, underwriters, P and I executives and a huge number of people who work in the centre of British shipping, making London the maritime centre of the world. The maritime sector earns huge invisible exports for this country.
      I believe that, when discussing subsequent Finance Bills, we may have to return to the subject of the ways in which the maritime service sector can be consolidated in its position as the world's premier maritime centre. Other centres are already trying to become competitive and undermine our leading position. It is essential that we consolidate our position at the centre of world shipping.
      It is clear that we need a viable home fleet. I know that I speak for the service sector in the City of London in supporting the amendments.
      Sir George Young: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) who, throughout the passage of the Finance Bill, has tirelessly championed the cause of the shipping industry. I agree with what he said this afternoon, particularly on the strategic importance of the shipping industry.
      I take very much on board what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said about the need to look at the discrimination and anti-competitive pressures that exist in other countries. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers read his speech and take appropriate action. Bobbing in the wake of my right hon. and hon. Friends are Opposition Members, and we are, of course, grateful for their support.
      We have debated roll-over relief for shipping extensively in Committee, so my remarks can be brief. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) spoke as much about the shipbuilding industry as the shipping industry. We provide financial support to the shipbuilding industry, under the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. But the measures before the House involve the shipping industry.
      The point of roll-over relief is to encourage reinvestment in the merchant fleet in the face of competition from other countries, a number of which provide extensive tax subsidies to their shipping fleets. It is important, with a measure such as roll-over relief, to get the period right. The period must be long enough to ensure that the timing of the investment is not distorted or dominated by the mere ticking of a clock.
      However, if the period is set too long, the measure goes beyond facilitating investment. By encouraging calculation about future price movements to dominate, it can cause commercially justified and economically desirable investment to be delayed. There is no magic

      1573
      formula for the right period. It is a matter of judging the right balance in the particular circumstances of this unique industry.
      In Committee, the eloquence of my hon. Friends convinced me that our original proposal for a three-year roll-over period is too short by a significant margin. It carries too great a chance that, in too many cases, investment would be forced by the expiry of the roll-over period and would be below par in economic terms, so the Government have concluded that a substantial increase in the period is needed, and a doubling of the roll-over period is warranted. The Government are therefore content to accept the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and we commend them to the House.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends put down some markers. They threw some buoys overboard, which are bobbing in the water to be picked up or not by the Finance Bill Committee when it cruises past next year. We will, of course, monitor carefully the effect of the amendments.
      I was asked about the cost. The cost of the measure as it now stands in the Bill peaks at £20 million in 1996–97, and starts to decline in 1998–99. The amendments mean that the peak costs would continue until 2001-02. I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 92, line 23, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Waterson]

    Clause 88

      SHIPS IN RESPECT OF WHICH CHARGE MAY BE DEFERRED
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 96, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 5, in page 96, line 37, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 6, in page 96, line 47, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

    Clause 129

      PART-TIME WORKERS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
      6.30 pm
      Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 143, line 30, leave out from 'words' to end of line 32 and insert
      "a full-time employee" there shall be substituted "an employee".'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 17 to 21.
      Sir George Young: In Committee, when we debated new clause 5, on part-time workers in employee financial participation schemes, I said that we proposed to table amendments to the clause on Report. These are the amendments that I promised. As I said in Committee, they are designed to ensure that the provisions in the clause about the inclusion of part-time workers in financial participation schemes will apply only to part-time employees and not to part-time directors.
      I explained in Committee why we had decided to amend the clause in this way. The clause is designed to open up financial participation schemes fully to part-time
      1574
      workers following the House of Lords' decision in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission and another.
      When we were planning the legislation, we believed that, to treat part-time workers fairly and in accordance with the House of Lords' decision, it was necessary to treat all workers alike, whether they were employees or directors.
      After further consideration, however, and in the light of representations from institutional shareholders, we were satisfied that we could properly take part-time directors out of the new clause altogether, without conflicting with the House of Lords' decision. We thought it right to do that, because there is a distinction between part-time directors and part-time employees. The personal interests of a company's non-executive directors, in particular, should not be too closely tied to the company and its share price if they are to bring a measure of independent judgment to the company's affairs.
      The amendments mean there would be no change at all in the present treatment of part-time directors in relation to any of the tax-relieved schemes. In particular, they will remain unable to participate in approved executive option schemes and qualifying employee share ownership trusts.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Financial Secretary has accepted our arguments in Committee, although at the time he was unable to accept the form of our amendment to achieve the objective that the Government are now achieving through amendment No. 16.
      We welcome the amendment. It was always wrong to imagine that it would have been acceptable to extend the opportunities of the tax breaks on executive share options to part-time directors. I shall agree that the Government have conceded to the advice that they have received from institutional investors if the Financial Secretary will concede that they have also given ground to the upsurge in public concern on the matter and to the vigorous campaign waged by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Labour party.
      The amendment represents one small step towards reforming the potential abuse of the schemes that we have debated elsewhere in the Bill; therefore, we welcome it. It is wrong, however, that the Government should ever have entertained for an instant the idea of extending tax breaks on executive share options to part-time directors. We are glad that the Government have conceded to the pressure that the Labour party has mounted on the issue and we support the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 143, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert
      '27(4) (qualifying employee defined as employee required to work at least 20 hours a week) the words from "who is required" to the end shall be omitted'.
      No. 18, in page 143, line 44, leave out from 'words' to end of line 46 and insert
      "'a full-time employee" there shall be substituted "an employee".'.
      No. 19, in page 144, line 1, leave out from 'week)' to end of line 3 and insert
      'for the words "at that given time he worked as an employee or" there shall be substituted "in the case of a director, at that given time he worked as a".'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Clause 146

      INHERITANCE TAX: AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
      Amendments made: No. 84, in page 156, line 16, at end insert—
      '(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) In the application of this section as respects property in Scotland, the reference in subsection (2)(c) above to a tenancy beginning on or after 1st September 1995 includes a reference to its being acquired on or after that date by right of succession (the date of acquisition being taken to be the date on which the successor gives relevant notice under section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991).".'.
      No. 85, in page 156, line 17, leave out 'Subsection (1)' and insert 'Subsections (1) and (lA)'—[Mr. Nelson.]

    Schedule 3

      AMUSEMENT MACHINE LICENCE DUTY
      The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 164, line 24, leave out from 'machines); to end of line 26 and insert
      'for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
      "(b) a five-penny machine which is a prize machine without being a gaming machine or which (if it is a gaming machine) is a small-prize machine, or
      (c) a thirty-five-penny machine which is not a prize machine."'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 23 to 26.
      Amendment No. 90, in page 166, line 21, at end insert
      'after paragraph (a)—(d) there shall be inserted—
      "(e) the machine is one that can only be played by the insertion into the machine of a coin or coins of a value exceeding 50 pence.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 27 to 32, 81 and 34.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced, in his Budget speech, that he wanted to widen the coverage of gaming duty to cover amusement machines such as arcade video games. That is the purpose of clause 13 and schedule 3. The schedule is due to come into effect on 1 November 1995 for machines made available for play on or after that date.
      Gaming machines have long been liable to duty, but the tax base for gaming machine licence duty was being eroded by competition from machines outside the scope of the existing duty. The amendments fulfil a pledge given in Committee that the Government would make changes to the provisions for the introduction of amusement machine licence duty.
      The package is designed to meet the industry's concerns that the extension of the duty net captured too many machines that could not afford to bear the licence cost, even at the rate of £250 a year.
      We listened carefully to the industry and we are grateful for the help it gave in framing the amendment in terms that it finds more acceptable. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who is in his place, and for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who were vigilant to ensure that the concerns of the industry were brought to my attention.
      1576
      We have already introduced amendments in Committee to give effect to the seasonal concession for all machines, including those newly brought within the scope of the tax.
      The amendments, first, limit to the lowest rate—£250—all machines newly brought within the scope of the tax. That meets a concern of the industry that some of the new machines would otherwise be taxed at the higher gaming machine rates. The £250 rate for the new machines is less than half the rate that applies to the lowest category of gaming machines.
      Secondly, the amendments define video machines according to the number of screens rather than to the number of playing positions, and this again meets a concern of the industry that a machine with two playing positions for one screen could be taxed at twice the normal rate. That will not be the case.
      Thirdly, the amendments exempt from duty all new machines except quiz machines that can be played for an amount not exceeding 35p. That goes further than the 20p exception mentioned in Standing Committee. For instance, it means that machines that give three plays for £1 will be exempt. That will exclude many pinball machines.
      Fourthly, we will limit the duty to video machines, quiz machines and pinball machines. That responds to a concern that, if we were to extend it wider than that, many arcades, particularly those in seaside resorts, could not afford to keep in play a number of machines which appeal to children. Therefore, a typical family entertainment centre would become a centre almost exclusively for adults.
      Fifthly, the trade has requested the reintroduction of special licences, and I am willing to concede that. The envisaged reintroduced special licences would enable operators to move machines more freely between sites without incurring additional licensing costs. That is particularly important for machines that are marginal and that could be given a boost by transferring them from one site, such as a pub, to another site in order to cater for changes in demand.
      That is a complex measure. We will need to discuss it with the trade and give it legislative effect in the next Budget. Meanwhile, I assure the House that the facility will be available from the introduction of the new duty on 1 November 1995 by extra-statutory concession. I think that the House will agree that we have gone a very long way towards meeting the industry's concerns and I commend all the amendments to the House.
      Ms Dawn Primarolo: Although I welcome the Government's amendments and their about-face on the issue, it is a shame that the Paymaster General did not have the good grace to acknowledge the hard work and the lobbying by hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to it or the debate about it in Committee.
      The Government proposed to introduce a new tax on amusement machines which hon. Members on both sides of the House lobbied against extensively. The trade association, which represents some 80 per cent. of the amusement machine industry, worked hard to educate the Government as to the folly of their original proposals. It pointed out that, in their rush to find more and more indirect taxes in order to try to fulfil their hollow promise of direct tax cuts, the Government would be taxing an industry to such an extent that City accountants Pannell,

      1577
      Kerr and Forster estimated that almost 3,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the original proposals and that they would cost the Government almost £50 million.
      The proposals for a new tax on machines came on top of a 43 per cent. increase on gaming machine licence duty in the past two years. There is a good lesson for the Government to learn from this sorry episode: it is always better to consult and to listen to the industry before drafting legislation.
      The Government have now made some very real concessions in the regime as proposed originally, such as exempting from duty videos and pinball machines costing 35p or less to play, and reintroducing the special licences that the Government originally proposed to abolish. That is a triumph not only for the industry but for the good sense that has prevailed among the Opposition, if not on the Government Benches. We are glad that progress has been made.
      Nevertheless, the Government will have to monitor closely the impact of the new tax regime on the industry. I hope that they will give a commitment in stronger terms than the Paymaster General used to consult widely with the industry. There is no point in taxing an industry until it goes out of business, and the Government came very close to achieving that in this instance. We welcome the amendments, but I am sure that we will have to return to the issue again in later Finance Bills.
      6.45 pm
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: Before I proceed, I should declare an interest as I am an adviser to the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, a number of whose members have amusement machines installed on their sites.
      I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), but on this occasion I believe that she made an extremely valid point about new taxes. Time after time, without ever learning the lessons from previous occasions, the Government introduce a new tax without consultation, without thought and frequently without any depth of knowledge of the industry concerned. It is then swiftly revealed that the effects of the tax are counter-productive and may lead to unemployment. In this case, far from raising revenue, it would have cost the Government money if certain alterations had not been made.
      I commend to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General a study of the system which I understand prevails in America. A select committee of Congress, or its equivalent, anticipates a tax proposal not in quantum, but in its application, target and how it will be carried out for at least a year before it is introduced. That gives everyone who has an interest or expertise in the area the opportunity to set the matter straight. Therefore, when it is finally introduced, the legislation is clear, easily understood and has a beneficial effect.
      Sir John Gorst: Like my hon. Friend, I must declare an interest as I am an adviser to the industry. I remind him that when amusement licence duty was first introduced 26 years ago or more—by a Labour Government—the same thing happened. Roy Jenkins introduced it at a swingeingly high level which had to be slashed to meet the industry's ability to pay. As my hon. Friend says, it happens time and again under Government
      1578
      after Government. I hope that he is correct in urging the Government to consult any industry before taxing it in future.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. I do not refer just to this tax; it is a wide point which I hope that the Government wil! take seriously.
      There is some evidence of a welcome change and of new thinking within the Treasury. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will go down in history as one who made a mark on our legislative procedures by introducing a different way of tackling the taxation issue. I thank him for taking immensely seriously the representations from many of my constituents in Weston-super-Mare. I know that amusement arcade operators in Burnham-on-Sea in his constituency expressed the same opinions. In responding to them, I believe that we have arrived at a much better arrangement. The fact that the British Amusement Catering and Trades Association has accepted the changes is, I think, adequate confirmation that the present proposal is much more sound.
      I am sorry that, because of the shenanigans of the Whips and the misfortune of having an early night, the motion on new clause 18, which would have allowed us to debate the matter, was not moved yesterday. The new clause proposed the exemption of caravan and mobile home parks from the tax on the ground that the sorts of entertainment machines provided on site to amuse the inhabitants of such parks during the British summer were not main revenue earners, but simply amusements to occupy people. The machines will have to be removed because the revenue from them is so small that it is not worth paying the tax.
      All caravan and mobile home parks have to be registered with and licensed by the local authority; therefore, there was no difficulty in definition. The Government clearly were not going to smile on the new clause, but I hope that they will, however, do their sums, as the Customs and Excise goes about its duties, and work out that the cost of collecting from and checking those many remote sites will prove a negative operation. The revenue for the whole tax is minuscule. Indeed, I would question whether the total addition to the revenue has been worth the anguish that it has caused to a good many people.
      I know that time presses, but I hope that it will be in order if I thank my hon. Friend the Paymaster General once again for the amendments, which will be strongly supported in seaside towns and in the amusement areas of many of our tourist attractions. Ministers quite rightly on the one hand make a point about the importance of tourism, but then the dead hand of the Treasury manages to intervene and tax it. The two are not compatible. My hon. Friend has been going down the right course with the amendments.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I welcome amendment No. 80, I shall address myself to amendment No. 90, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
      Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I have received extensive briefings from BACTA on this issue, so I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that have already been propounded by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), from the Labour Front Bench. It is worth reminding the House, however, that BACTA

      1579
      contributed some £375 million to the Exchequer in 1994 in VAT and gaming machine licence duty. It is, therefore, an organisation that cannot be ignored. All of us have welcomed the way in which it has conducted its campaign in the context of the Finance Bill.
      I have also received considerable representations from representatives of the licensed trade association in my constituency, which, of course, is also an area where tourism is of great significance. Whatever one's moral opinion of the various machines that operate in our tourist resorts, one must recognise that they play a significant part in ensuring employment and opportunities for people who wish to reside permanently in those areas.
      Amendment No. 90 was tabled by my hon. Friends to establish the effects of the Government's amendments. Although BACTA is pleased with the changes which give some genuine relief to the industry, we must recognise that it is a new tax and that it was accompanied by a second substantial increase in gaming machine licence duty in two years, neither of which can be passed on. I put it to Ministers on the Treasury Bench that there should be a requirement to look at the possibility of having a 50p exemption, as I think that it follows Government thinking on the issue. A 50p exemption would give genuine relief to the low-earning machines that would otherwise be removed from site. We have to think of the small tourist areas—the villages, caravan sites, and small localities—where the machines are one of the attractions for people who come to the area. I also believe that a 50p exemption would catch some of the higher-earning machines and reduce amusement machine licence duty takes to an insignificant level. That is a matter that must be taken on board. I wonder why the Government have not considered extending the exemption that currently exists to skill with prizes machines, because there does not seem to be a particular difficulty in that. I do not know why they have drawn the line between the various machines that might be played.
      I also ask the Paymaster General to make it clear to us whether he has worked out how many machines are currently on a 20p or 50p payment system, because there does not appear to have been a real Government assessment of that issue. We need to know the implications for tax take and assessment. Surely we have the right to know precisely what the Government are talking about.
      The Paymaster General referred earlier to the fact that he would continue consultations with BACTA and other interested organisations, which, I assume, will include representatives of the tourism industry. Once he has completed those consultations, how does he intend to bring back his recommendations to the House? Will it be through statutory instrument, or does he intend to introduce further primary legislation? Is it something that we can anticipate in the Budget in November this year? It is extremely important to know the answer, because the people who have written to hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to know how the matter will be progressed. I should be most grateful if the Paymaster General would announce what procedures he intends to follow.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I wish to add briefly to the comments that have already been made and to add to them my thanks and those of my other hon.
      1580
      Friends who have been heavily involved in discussions with my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench for their great courtesy and for the time and trouble that they have taken in welcoming the delegations and the various submissions that have been made.
      I pay particular tribute to the leadership in the campaign and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), who is in his place, and who has always fought the industry's cause strongly. Representing as I do the southern half of the world's leading tourist resort, it is no surprise that I pay tribute to him and to other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait)—who was extremely assiduous in supporting all the work that we did—and for Dover (Mr. Shaw), whom my hon. Friend the Paymaster General mentioned in his opening remarks.
      Both BACTA and BALPPA—the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions—have been extremely active in making their case, supported by many smaller companies, even those which are not members of those leading organisations, and by individual employees. The size of my file on the matter well exceeds that on any other issue that I have had to take up in my three years in the House. It has been an extremely effective campaign, and I very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened. Before the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) is too confident in claiming credit for the Opposition, I should remind her that the day before the matter came before the Committee, of which she and I were members, she was asked by BACTA—the main lobbying organisation—not to press the Labour amendments to a vote. She told BACTA that she would not, but Opposition Members thought that they saw a short-term electoral opportunity—
      Ms Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: When I finish my point, of course I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
      Having promised the lobbying organisation that the Labour party would not press the matter to a vote, the hon. Lady thought that she saw a voting opportunity to defeat the Government and broke her promise.
      Ms Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has misled the House, and I shall produce the evidence for him in private. I hope that he will then come back to the House to correct the record. What he has said is not true.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am happy to welcome any submissions that the hon. Lady may make to me, but I should tell her that what I just said, and I hope that I was not misleading the House, came to me directly within five minutes of it happening from those—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am concerned tonight only with the substance of the amendments before us. I do not want to hear a potted history of what did or did not happen.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Paymaster General once again for his common sense and courtesy.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: At one point during Conservative Members' speeches, I thought that we were attending a consultants' convention. I have no interest to declare, other than a constituency interest.

      1581
      I, too, welcome the amendment. I was lobbied by arcade operators in my constituency, particularly Mr. Billy Cullis, who has arcades in Saltcoats, Largs and elsewhere in south-west Scotland. It is a pity that BACTA was required to line Rodin's with pinball machines to bring home a point that should have been obvious from the start. As has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House—particulary my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo)—if there had been some consultation and cost-benefit analysis before the introduction of the original proposal, it would never have reached the stage that it reached.
      7 pm
      The proposal would have caused a loss of jobs in the industry, which would have increased the net burden on the state. It would also have led to the removal of machines that give innocent non-gambling pleasure to children in particular, softening the impact of arcades. If those machines had been taken away, we should have been left with rows of one-armed bandits—which would have been rather an odd aim even for a Government who are currently devoted to the promotion of gambling.
      We welcome the changes that have been made, and I am glad that my constituents' interests have been safeguarded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South and other Opposition Members. The attempt by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) to make a petty party point was pretty pathetic; let us not forget that we would not be discussing the proposal at all had it not been originally made by the Government of which he is a temporary supporter.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I support what has been said by the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I was pleased to add my name to amendment No. 90.
      The Government have gone some way towards meeting our demands, and I am grateful for that. The industry is very important to my constituency: in Barmouth, for instance, I have been lobbied persistently. I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North: without the good sense of those who lobbied, the changes would not have been made. The Government should have considered the matter in more depth before drafting their original proposals.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) spoke of the anxiety caused to the industry by those initial proposals. They were draconian, and would have led to many job losses. I therefore give the Government amendment a guarded welcome, although I should have preferred amendment No. 90 to have been accepted. I hope that the Government will not make an even worse mess of things in the next Finance Bill. My speech may sound grudging, but I am nevertheless grateful for small mercies.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: Let me join other hon. Members on both sides of the House in thanking my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for his flexible approach. I recall the first occasion on which Conservative Members visited him to discuss the matter: he was amazed to find his office filled to overflowing with Members of Parliament who had come to represent the views of operators of amusement arcade machines in holiday constituencies and elsewhere.
      1582
      Following the amendments, the Government's proposals are much more flexible. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has already pointed out that we have now extended the gap between machines intended purely for amusement and pleasure and those based on an element of gambling and gaming. The difficulties probably arose because the two types of machine were muddled when the original proposals were made.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for what he has done, but we should also pay tribute to the way in which the industry has lobbied us. Many hon. Members have referred to that, and have also named specific individuals. Like those in traditional fairs, many operators of amusement arcades are marvellous characters, and it is a pleasure to be lobbied by them. That is not always the case when the House is heavily lobbied. We all enjoyed our contacts with representatives of the amusement business, and with those who operate the small machines.
      I am particularly grateful for the exclusion of such machines as the traditional crane, which I used to play many years ago when I was a child. It really represents the spirit of the seaside, and, given the weather in this country, parents welcome it.
      My hon. Friend the Paymaster General can take considerable credit for the way in which the matter has been handled. I think that the industry feels a certain satisfaction with Parliament's response to its genuine concerns.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the general acceptance that the extension of the tax has had a happy outcome. I am particularly grateful for what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who were closely involved in the discussions that took place.
      Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North that I never intended to damage the industry, or drive out of business people who add to the richness and gaiety of our national life. We have all experienced the valuable family entertainment that is provided in our constituencies. There are also expensive machines that cater for the more adult player: those are not gaming machines, but they cost a good deal nevertheless. We intended to shift the burden to broader shoulders as far as possible, and to make things easier for seaside arcades and operators who may have only a few machines.
      I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about seasonal caravan parks, which often have only a few machines. It would be sad if those operators felt that they could not continue. I think that my hon. Friend will agree, however, that the seasonal licence greatly assists caravan park owners, who can obtain a six-month licence for the summer months and operate the machines for eight months: effectively, they are given two months free of charge. The exemption for any machine costing less than 35p a play automatically excludes many smaller machines catering for holidaymakers.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) issued a number of strictures about the need to consult. I take it from what she said that Labour, if it ever gained power, would always consult on any tax changes. Perhaps our successors, who may one day witness that phenomenon, will remember the pledge.

      1583
      The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me about skill with prizes machines, sometimes called quiz machines. Why were they included? The answer is that they can give the player up to £10 in prizes. I remind the hon. Lady that they will be taxed at only £250 a year, whereas comparable gaming machines that can give out prizes and cash amounting to only up to £6 are already taxed at £535 per annum. I think that she will agree that it is fair to include the quiz machines in the tax.
      The hon. Lady asked me about the legislative vehicles for those changes. I confirm to her that all the changes are in the Bill, with the exception of the special licences that we shall introduce. Because of their complexity, they cannot be drafted in time for the Bill. They will be in the next Finance Bill. I make it clear that an extra-statutory concession will ensure that the benefits, or their equivalent, will be available from 1 November until the date when the next Finance Bill comes into law. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the tax is right and proper and that the House will give the amendments its consent.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 164, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.
      No. 24, in page 165, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—

      (1)

      (2)

      (3)

      (4)

      'Period (in months) for which licence granted

      Machines that are not gaming machines

      Gaming machines that are small-prize machines or are five-penny machines without being small-prize machines

      Other machines'

      No. 25, in page 166, line 15, leave out 'and'.
      No. 26, in page 166, line 21, at end insert 'and
      (e) the machine is a gaming machine, a video machine or a pinball machine.'.
      No. 27, in page 166, line 22, leave out 'An amusement machine' and insert
      'A machine constructed or adapted for the playing of a game'.
      No. 28, in page 166, leave out lines 35 to 44 and insert—
      '(1B) A machine constructed or adapted for the playing of a game is a video machine for the purposes of this Act if—

      (a) a micro-processor is used to control some or all of the machine's functions; and

      (b) the playing of the game involves information or images being communicated or displayed to the player or players by means of any description of screen, other than one consisting only in a blank surface onto which light is projected.

      (1C) For the purposes of this Act an amusement machine is a prize machine unless it is constructed or adapted so that a person playing it once and successfully either receives nothing or receives only—

      (a) an opportunity, afforded by the automatic action of the machine, to play again (once or more often) without paying, or

      (b) a prize, determined by the automatic action of the machine and consisting in either—

      (i) money of an amount not exceeding the sum payable to play the machine once, or

      1584

      (ii) a token which is, or two or more tokens which in the aggregate are, exchangeable for money of an amount not exceeding that sum.".'.

      No. 29, in page 166, line 46, leave out
      'for "a gaming" there shall be substituted "an amusement"'
      and insert
      'for "a gaming machine" there shall be substituted "a machine of any description".'.
      No. 30, in page 166, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 167 and insert—
      '(3) For subsections (5) to (9) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
      "(5) For the purposes of sections 21 to 24 above a machine (the actual machine) in relation to which the number determined in accordance with subsection (5A) below is more than one shall be treated (instead of as one machine) as if it were a number of machines (accountable machines) equal to the number so determined.
      (5A) That number is—

      (a) except where paragraph (b) below applies, the number of individual playing positions provided on the machine for persons to play simultaneously (whether or not while participating in the same game); and

      (b) where—

      (i) that machine is a video machine but not a gaming machine, and

      (ii) the number of such playing positions is more than the number of different screens used for the communication or display of information or images to any person or persons playing a game by means of the machine,

      the number of such screens.

      (6) Subsection (5) above does not apply in the case of any machine which is an excepted machine for the purposes of section 21 above or in the case of a pinball machine.
      (7) Any question whether the accountable machines are, or are not, machines falling within any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

      (a) gaming machines,

      (b) prize machines,

      (c) small-prize machines, or

      (d) five-penny machines,

      shall be determined according to whether or not the actual machine is a machine of that description, with the accountable machines being taken to be machines of the same description as the actual machine.".'.
      No. 31, in page 167, line 7, at end insert—
      '. After section 25 there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Power to modify definition of 'amusement machine'
      25A.—(1) The Treasury may by order modify the provisions of section 25 above—

      (a) by adding to the machines for the time being specified in subsection (1)(e) of that section any description of machines which it appears to them, having regard to the use to which the machines are put, to be appropriate for the protection of the revenue so to add to those machines; or

      (b) by deleting any description of machines for the time being so specified.

      (2) An order under this section may make such incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Treasury think fit, including provision modifying section 21 or section 25(5A) above for the purpose of—

      (a) specifying the circumstances (if any) in which a machine added to section 25(1)(e) above is to be an excepted machine for the purposes of section 21 above; or

      (b) determining the number which, in the case of a machine so added, is to be taken into account for the purposes of section 25(5) above.".'.

      1585
      No. 32, in page 167, line 9, after '7' insert '01'.
      No. 81, in page 167, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2) In subsection (2) of that section—

      (a) after the definition of "United Kingdom" there shall be inserted the following definitions—

      "'video machine' has the meaning given by section 25(1B) above;
      'prize machine' has the meaning given by section 25(1C) above;"
      and
      (b) after the definition of a "five-penny machine" there shall be inserted the following definition—
      "'thirty-five-penny machine' means an amusement machine which can only be played by the insertion into the machine of coins of an aggregate denomination not exceeding 35p;".
      (3) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) References in sections 21 to 25 above and in this section and Schedule 4 to this Act to a game, in relation to any machine, include references to a game in the nature of a quiz or puzzle and to a game which is played solely by way of a pastime or against the machine, as well as one played wholly or partly against one or more contemporaneous or previous players.".'.
      No. 34, in page 167, line 19, at end insert—
      ' In section 32(3) (orders subject to affirmative procedure), for "or 14(3)" there shall be substituted "14(3) or 25A",'.—[Mr. Wells.]

    Schedule 4

      VEHICLE EXCISE AND REGISTRATION
      Amendment made: No. 69, in page 170, line 6, at end insert—
      'Exemption for vehicles used between different parts of land
      3A. In Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act the following shall be inserted after paragraph 20—
      "Vehicles used between different parts of land
      20A. A vehicle is an exempt vehicle if—

      (a) it is used only for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or forestry,

      (b) it is used on public roads only in passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person, and

      (c) the distance it travels on public roads in passing between any two such areas does not exceed 1.5 kilometres.".'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 176, leave out lines 45 to 49 and insert—
      '"(2) The annual rate of vehicle excise duty applicable—

      (a) to any rigid goods vehicle which is a showman's goods vehicle with a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms but not exceeding 44,000 kilograms, and

      (b) to any rigid goods vehicle which is an island goods vehicle with a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms,

      shall be the basic goods vehicle rate.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 62 to 67.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May I remind hon. Members of the background to this debate? At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, I made it clear that the concession attaching to vehicle excise duty of island vehicles arose from the fact that no plating and testing
      1586
      stations existed on a number of offshore islands. Consequently, vehicles on those islands are relieved of the obligation to pay duty higher than £150 per year.
      A change has been made in the Bill. The present system of plating and testing is being replaced by another system: revenue weight taxation. If we did nothing, therefore, all those vehicles would be subject to the full vehicle excise duty rates.
      In an earlier debate, I undertook to return to the House with proposals to make some concessions in recognition of the fact that many of those vehicles are low-mileage vehicles and are essential to the well-being of the island communities in which they are based. I therefore met and corresponded with hon. Members representing those islands. I have agreed to continue to grant significant special treatment to lorries on those small islands.
      The Government have decided to allow the £150 concessionary rate of vehicle excise duty to continue to apply to smaller lorries—that is, lorries up to 17 tonnes—provided that they are based on the islands, irrespective of the mainland mileage that they may also do. Heavier lorries—defined as being over 17 tonnes—that are based on the islands, but that visit the mainland only to collect or deliver goods from docks, will also be liable for the £150 per annum concessionary rate. The definition of "delivering to docks" will include loading or unloading within 5 km of those docks.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Wilson: We have moved a fair distance since we had what became a famous little late-night debate on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). To some extent, the Minister has educated himself in the ways of offshore islands. He knows of the existence of many islands that he might not have been terribly familiar with that night. He was not served very well by his briefing on that occasion.
      Certainly, the proposal before the House is a distinct improvement, although the Minister has not gone as far as we would like him to have gone. That is evidenced by the figures that he supplied us with on the number of vehicles in various categories that will be exempt. In Arran, the main island in my constituency, there are 10 vehicles of 7.5 tonnes and 12 of 17 tonnes. Twenty-two vehicles will be exempt from normal excise duty.
      However, there are nine 24-tonne vehicles, six 30-tonne vehicles and 13 38-tonne vehicles—28 in all. Those larger vehicles will for the first time be subject to the same vehicle excise duty level as vehicles based on the mainland. That will be a source of great disappointment to my constituents who operate the firms. They will face an on-cost running into many thousands of pounds, which will inevitably be passed on to islanders. I am sure that that will be the view of my colleagues who participated in the first debate and who will participate again this evening.
      The Minister's reason for denying that concession was that it was not practical to work out with the ferry operators a scheme that would have identified the number of journeys that those larger vehicles made per year. He said that it was simply not feasible to give that concession.
      I should like to record my disappointment about that. It would have been feasible to establish that those lorries were genuinely island-based and serving island communities. Therefore, the principle that the Minister

      1587
      has accepted in relation to smaller vehicles should have been applied to larger vehicles. We have, however, moved some part of way. For that much, I am grateful.
      I want to put the matter in perspective. The islands have not been given a great concession. If the Government want to hand out money through the taxation system, they are perfectly capable of doing so. I do not need to remind the Minister that on 1 April—just a few days ago—a spectacular reduction in taxation took effect which involves the communities that we are talking about.
      I refer to the abolition of sporting rates, which will give a minimum of £2 million—or, according to the boast of one Tory Member of Parliament, £5 million—to sporting proprietors, mainly in the highlands and islands of Scotland. I guess that, in his other capacity, the Minister has probably personally gained more from that tax cut than any island haulier will gain from the small concession that has been made tonight.
      Mr. Robert Key: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister. The debate that we had late at night on another occasion was one of the most embarrassing experiences that I have had since I was elected to the House. I am grateful for the statesmanlike and practical way in which he has resolved the problem, which will be of enormous benefit to many islanders the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for having agreed to reconsider the matter of a concessionary vehicle excise duty rate for island-based lorries. It had come as something of a shock to me and the island communities in my constituencies and those of other hon. Members that, after reassurances from the Department of Transport last year, we suddenly found that the Bill contained clauses that put an end to such concessions.
      My impression on the night that we debated the matter at the end of January was that the Minister had had no consultation with the Department of Transport and was somewhat taken aback by—indeed, unprepared for—the strength of feeling expressed. I therefore appreciate the Minister's rethink and the useful meeting and subsequent exchange of letters which I and other hon. Members have had with him.
      We now have a definition of an island goods vehicle which, as the Minister said, can be of any size if used only on the islands, or on mainland roads to and from the islands provided that it weighs less than 17 tonnes. I am glad that he agreed to my request to increase the size from 12 tonnes to 17 tonnes. That will be especially welcome to a number of farmers and crofters, because it will allow them, for example, to take cattle or sheep to market and to return with a load of hay from wherever they can get it on the mainland.
      The definition of a small island—less than 230,000 hectares—caused a moment of panic, because I thought that the island of Mull must be bigger than that—but not so. The Minister kindly sent a list of islands that come into this category, and asked for any additions. I can tell him that we need to include the islands of Luing and Lismore. He must have been horrified when he saw the number produced by Ordnance Survey, but I can assure him that they do not all have lorries, at least not yet.
      1588
      Amendment No. 61, subsection (2)(b), would allow the lorries coming off the ferries to travel 5 km without penalty to marshalling yards. That would cover the tractor units that simply ply back and forth on the ferries, which we discussed previously. It is welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) because often, on the islands in his constituency, lorry loading and unloading cannot be carried out on the pier but has to happen at a nearby depot or yard.
      There is, however, one problem that I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. A lorry larger than 17 tonnes and operating solely on an island may need to come off once in a while for special repairs. For example, I have a constituent on the island of Islay who has a Volvo lorry which can be repaired only at Barrhead near Glasgow. I hope that the Minister's officials will try to solve such problems.
      I cannot sit down without making it clear to the House that island-based haulage contractors are deeply concerned by the loss of the concession for those who operate businesses on the islands. I am sure that many companies have written to Ministers. Such companies include Gordon Harper, the haulage contractor on Mull; the Trading and Transport company on Tiree; Rothesay Carriers on Bute; and G. and M. Porter, hauliers on Islay. They all provide much-needed employment which is vital for the prevention of further depopulation and for the protection of the fragile economies of those areas.
      The Minister will be aware of the views expressed by the Freight Transport Association, to the effect that it is illogical not also to allow larger lorries the same concession when they are going to the mainland only to deliver goods from, or collect goods for delivery to, the islands. They are not in competition with mainland operators, who are not interested in this sort of work because they do not wish to bear the extra ferry costs.
      As I am sure the Minister knows, the cost of living on many islands is very high. For example, on Tiree, petrol is £3 a gallon. There are only three ferries a week in winter, and the return ferry cost for a 32-tonne articulated lorry carrying 20 tonnes, made up of groceries, beer and household goods, or a load of coal, is £416 plus value added tax.
      On the island of Mull, the haulage contractor's business depends on the taking of loads to and from the mainland. He also transports timber and granite and returns with animal foodstuffs, fish food for the fish farms, building materials or coal. He does not compete with mainland operators, and is fearful that any increase in the cost of the produce coming from the island will lead to mainland buyers saying that it is too expensive and that they will no longer buy such commodities.
      Of course, the islands have recently suffered another blow. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Government were withdrawing the tariff rebate subsidy given to the boats and ships which succeeded the puffers which plied the islands carrying salt and coal. The subsidy is to be withdrawn, so more goods will be hauled on the roads.
      I should like to point out that, in terms of Treasury take, the amount that we are debating is peanuts and of no consequence in the larger scheme of things, yet, on the islands, it is the difference between surviving and going out of business, between staying on the islands and

      1589
      leaving. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have absolutely no doubt that some island haulage contractors will have to close.
      Although there was some abuse, which was deeply resented by islanders who carry on a legitimate and honest business, it was not widespread. I suggested to the Minister how enforcement could be properly policed. Caledonian MacBrayne in fact records the registration numbers of lorries, and lorries carry a tachograph which record where lorries leave from, where they are going and the distance they travel. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will hold further discussions, especially with the Freight Transport Association, because the problem will not go away.
      Finally, I am sincerely grateful to the Paymaster General for having listened, and I appreciate the support that I have received from hon. Members from all parties. From nothing, sensible discussion has yielded a significant change of heart, and I ask the House to support the amendment.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Gratitude is a very rare commodity in politics, and it is a pleasure to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Paymaster General that I am extremely grateful to him. The debate that took place on that January night was embarrassing. I felt deeply sorry for him, because he was taken unawares in a gale that would have done credit to any island. He has, however, emerged from it a stronger and tougher man, and has listened carefully. I shall not make any churlish comments at all, but wish simply to express my gratitude to him for taking on board a very important case that was made with great eloquence by hon. Members of all parties.
      I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is present—he was Banquo at the feast in the previous debate—and that he has been able to utter on this occasion. The solution that has been reached, while not perfect, will bring enormous benefit to some of the finest citizens in the British Isles.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on moving the amendment which caused the initial debate some weeks ago, and on pursuing the case so tenaciously since. I also thank those Conservative Members who supported Opposition Members when this case was raised, especially the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Without his initial flexible attitude while he was a Minister, we would not have had the opportunity to return to the matter again. The Paymaster General must also be thanked for having agreed to reconsider this issue after what must have been quite a painful night for him.
      I am afraid, however, that thanks have to be limited, because it is not a question of benefits being conferred on the islands, but of damage being limited on them. The concession made by the Minister is still much too limited from my point of view and that of my constituents. It will cover only less than half the lorries which were previously exempt. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, there is no reason in principle why the concession could not have been extended to the whole range of lorries which were previously exempt.
      1590
      It is also important to note that the initial defence mounted by the Minister on behalf of the Treasury was that taxation had to be absolutely uniform in all circumstances throughout the United Kingdom. It is welcome that the Treasury has been forced to acknowledge that that principle cannot be applied inflexibly or stupidly, and that, indeed, there are profound differences between different parts of the United Kingdom. The position of the islands is very special, and we must take account of it.
      It is also important to note that this damage limitation exercise on behalf of island hauliers takes place against a background in which the Government are imposing swingeing cuts in other forms of support for transport and communications to the islands. The abolition of the freight subsidy, which will involve losses of million of pounds to island communities, has already been mentioned. As has been pointed out, the abolition of that subsidy will force more haulage on to the roads and away from direct travel by ship. Hauliers will then, of course, incur the additional costs of carrying freight in lorries which now pay an additional tax.
      There is also a continued squeeze on Caledonian MacBrayne and the support that it receives from the Scottish Office. All in all, the picture is very much of island communities continuing to be hit by a combination of measures introduced by the Government in reducing subsidy and imposing new levies and taxes where there was none before.
      It has to be emphasised that communication is a vital lifeline to fragile and vulnerable island communities. I do not think that we as representatives of those communities can be satisfied completely with the concession from the Government, and I have no doubt that we shall return to the question in future.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack). We have indeed tried to meet the legitimate needs and concerns of the smaller islands. We are supposed to be an island race, but I had never realised how many islands there were with small numbers of roads on them. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has just listed a couple more, which we shall undoubtedly add by secondary legislation. We shall consult freely to ensure that they are all on the list, and then there can be no doubt about which islands qualify for this special treatment.
      On the question of the servicing of the vehicles, I shall write to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute about the particular point that she raised.
      On the issue of proving that a lorry is island-based and the hon. Lady's other request that all weights of vehicles should be given the £150 concession, we asked ferry companies whether they reliably recorded the registration numbers of vehicles, and it seems that some do but some do not. There is the additional problem that, if an operator were applying for a licence for the year ahead, he would be providing documentation, if that system were accepted, for the previous year, which of course is not exactly the same thing.
      Therefore, I think that we have got it right, to give the smaller vehicles an essentially unlimited mileage on the mainland, if drivers wish it, for the £150 concession, provided that they can show that they are island-based.

      1591
      Larger vehicles—articulated lorries and vehicles which weigh more than 17 tonnes—may, as I outlined initially, make trips on the ferries to the mainland and may unload and load in the environs of the port, which is defined as being within 5 km. But if we were to agree that they could cover unlimited mileage on the mainland in addition, they would start to provide a form of unfair competition to operators based on the mainland, because they would be in receipt of a considerable and valuable concession. The difference between£150 and—possibly—up to £5,000 for the biggest articulated lorries would start to give them a considerable advantage.
      Mr. Wilson: I would like to clarify which objection prevails. If the main objection is about the ferries, then, as the Paymaster General has indicated, it is a very flimsy ground on which to refuse to extend the concession.
      I shall not take the time of the House, but it could be very easily established whether there was a pattern of regular travel between an island and the mainland. As the Minister recognises, some of the ferry companies keep such records. We are talking only about a handful companies at most, and certainly every hon. Member present is talking only about one company—the state-owned Caledonian MacBrayne. There is not the slightest difficulty in establishing the required information.
      If the main objection is based on the other grounds that the Minister has given, I would challenge it differently. Since the amount of money involved is bigger with larger lorries, the real economic cost to the islands will be paid through that higher excise duty. I ask the Minister to look at that case in the same constructive spirit that he has applied to smaller vehicles.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am describing to the House how we have looked at it in great detail, and I have given a practical objection to what was a good and original idea—to use the receipts from the ferry tickets as a way in which to show that a vehicle is genuinely island-based.
      Although, of course, the ferry operator Caledonian MacBrayne is familiar to the hon. Gentleman, I must remind him that other islands are not off the coast of Scotland. We are also referring to a number of English islands which are reached through a different operator, and it is our information that not all the operators reliably record the vehicle registration numbers. In addition, I cited the problem that documentation is retrospective, whereas the award of a concession is prospective: for the year ahead.
      I was about to describe a more general and separate objection, which is that, if a large, valuable vehicle based on an island is given the right to undertake unrestricted mileage on the mainland for the payment of only £150 per annum, it would begin to compete unfairly with the mainland hauliers. I therefore think that we are right to restrict the concession to small vehicles for the unlimited mileage, with larger vehicles having to be either for island use or for undertaking journeys to and from the mainland.
      I hope that we have met the main objections. I was certainly genuinely impressed by the case that was made. Of course we shall keep the matter under review, but I am not willing to make any further concessions now, because I believe that we have reached a sensible conclusion to a difficult and complex issue.
      1592
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if I put all the remaining amendments together.
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 177, line 2, leave out
      'with a revenue weight exceeding 44,000 kilograms'
      and insert
      'which has a revenue weight exceeding 44,000 kilograms and is not an island goods vehicle'.
      No. 63, in page 178, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert—
      '"(2) The annual rate of vehicle excise duty applicable—

      (a) to any tractive unit which is a showman's goods vehicle with a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms but not exceeding 44,000 kilograms, and

      (b) to any tractive unit which is an island goods vehicle with a revenue weight exceeding 3,500 kilograms,

      shall be the basic goods vehicle rate.'.
      No. 64, in page 178, line 28, leave out
      'with a revenue weight exceeding 44,000 kilograms'
      and insert
      'which has a revenue weight exceeding 44,000 kilograms and is not an island goods vehicle'.
      No. 65, in page 179, line 5, at end insert—
      '(19) The following shall be inserted after paragraph 17—
      "Meaning of 'island goods vehicle'
      18.—(1) In this Part 'island goods vehicle' means any goods vehicle which—

      (a) is kept for use wholly or partly on the roads of one or more small islands; and

      (b) is not kept or used on any mainland road, except in a manner authorised by sub-paragraph (2) or (3).

      (2) The keeping or use of a goods vehicle on a mainland road is authorised by this sub-paragraph if—

      (a) the road is one used for travel between a landing place and premises where vehicles disembarked at that place are loaded or unloaded, or both;

      (b) the length of the journey, using that road, from that landing place to those premises is not more than five kilometres;

      (c) the vehicle in question is one which was disembarked at that landing place after a journey by sea which began on a small island; and

      (d) the loading or unloading of that vehicle is to take place, or has taken place, at those premises.

      (3) The keeping or use of a goods vehicle on a mainland road is authorised by this sub-paragraph if—

      (a) that vehicle has a revenue weight not exceeding 17,000 kilograms;

      (b) that vehicle is normally kept at a base or centre on a small island; and

      (c) the only journeys for which that vehicle is used are ones that begin or end at that base or centre.

      (4) References in this paragraph to a small island are references to any such island falling within sub-paragraph (5) as may be designated as a small island by an order made by the Secretary of State.
      (5) An island falls within this sub-paragraph if—

      (a) it has an area of 230,000 hectares or less; and

      (b) the absence of a bridge, causeway, tunnel, ford or other way makes it at all times impracticable for road vehicles to be driven under their own power from that island as far as the mainland.

      (6) The reference in sub-paragraph (5) to driving a road vehicle as far as the mainland is a reference to driving it as far as any public road in the United Kingdom which is not on an island with an area of 230,000 hectares or less and is not a road connecting two such islands.

      1593
      (7) In this paragraph—

      'island' includes anything that is an island only when the tide reaches a certain height;

      'landing place' means any place at which vehicles are disembarked after sea journeys;

      'mainland road' means any public road in the United Kingdom. other than one which is on a small island or which connects two such islands; and

      'road vehicles' means vehicles which are designed or adapted primarily for being driven on roads and which do not have any special features for facilitating their being driven elsewhere;

      and references in this paragraph to the loading or unloading of a vehicle include references to the loading or unloading of its trailer or semi-trailer."'.
      No. 66, in page 179, line 36, after 'weight', insert—
      '(ba) the place where the vehicle has been or is normally kept,'.
      No. 67, in page 181, line 4 at end insert—
      '. In section 60(2) of the 1994 Act (orders subject to annulment), after "section 3(3)" there shall be inserted ",paragraph 18(4) of Schedule 1".'.
      No. 70, in page 194, line 41, leave out 'that Schedule' and insert
      'Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 8

      LIFE ASSURANCE BUSINESS
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 216, line 2, leave out from second 'business' to end of line 44 and insert
      'with a policy holder or annuitant not residing in the United Kingdom, and
      (b) in the case of reinsurance business, is—

      (i) reinsurance of life assurance business with a policy holder or annuitant not residing in the United Kingdom, or

      (ii) reinsurance of business within sub-paragraph (i) above or this sub-paragraph.'.

      No. 41, in page 216, line 45, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (7A) and'.
      No. 36, in page 216, line 45, leave out 'subsections (2) to (4)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
      No. 42, in page 217, line 7, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (7A) and'.
      No. 37, in page 217, line 7, leave out 'subsections (2) to (4)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
      No. 43, in page 217, line 10, at end insert—'
      (7A) Subsections (5) and (7) above do not apply if—

      (a) the rights conferred by the policy or contract for the business are held subject to a trust,

      (b) the settlor does not reside in the United Kingdom, and

      (c) each beneficiary is either an individual not residing in the United Kingdom or a charity.

      (7B) In subsection (7A) above—

      (a) "settlor" means the person, or (where more than one) each of the persons, by whom the trust was directly or indirectly created (and for this purpose a person shall, in particular, be regarded as having created the trust if he provided or undertook to provide funds directly or indirectly for the purposes of the trust or made with any other person a reciprocal arrangement for that other person to create the trust),

      (b) "beneficiary" means any person who is, or will or may become, entitled to any benefit under the trust (including any person who may become so entitled on the exercise of a discretion by the trustees of the trust), and

      1594

      (c) "charity" means a person or body of persons established for charitable purposes only;

      and for the purpose of that subsection an individual who is a trustee (of any trust) shall not be regarded as an individual.'.
      No. 38, in page 217, leave out lines 28 to 35.
      No. 44, in page 217, line 49, after 'from' insert 'trustees or'.
      No. 48, in page 222, line 27, at end insert—
      'Receipts to be brought into account
      .—(1) For section 83 of the Finance Act 1989 substitute—
      "Receipts to be brought into account
      83.—(1) The following provisions of this section have effect where the profits of an insurance company in respect of its life assurance business are, for the purposes of the Taxes Act 1988, computed in accordance with the provisions of that Act applicable to Case I of Schedule D.
      (2) So far as referable to that business, the following items, as brought into account for a period of account (and not otherwise), shall be taken into account as receipts of the period—

      (a) the company's investment income from the assets of its long term business fund, and

      (b) any increase in value (whether realised or not) of those assets.

      If for any period of account there is a reduction in the value referred to in paragraph (b) above (as brought into account for the period), that reduction shall be taken into account as an expense of that period.
      (3) In ascertaining whether or to what extent a company has incurred a loss in respect of that business any amount transferred into the company's long term business fund from other assets of the company, or otherwise added to that fund, shall be taken into account, in the period in which it is brought into account, as an increase in value of the assets of that fund within subsection (2)(b) above.
      This subsection does not apply where, or to the extent that, the amount concerned—

      (a) would fall to be taken into account as a receipt apart from this section,

      (b) is otherwise taken into account under subsection (2) above, or

      (c) is specifically exempted from tax.

      Meaning of "brought into account"
      83A.—(1) In section 83 "brought into account" means brought into account in an account which is recognised for the purposes of that section.
      (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to any regulations made by the Treasury, the accounts recognised for the purposes of that section are—

      (a) a revenue account prepared for the purposes of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in respect of the whole of the company's long term business;

      (b) any separate revenue account required to be prepared under that Act in respect of a part of that business.

      Paragraph (b) above does not include accounts required in respect of internal linked funds.
      (3) Where there are prepared any such separate accounts as are mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above, reference shall be made to those accounts rather than to the account for the whole of the business.
      (4) If in any such case the total of the items brought into account in the separate accounts is not equal to the total amount brought into account in the account prepared for the whole business, there shall be treated as having been required and prepared a further separate revenue account covering the balance.
      (5) Where a company carries on both ordinary long term business and industrial assurance business, the references above

      1595
      to the company's long term business shall be construed as references to either or both of those businesses, as the case may require.".
      (2) In section 432B of the Taxes Act 1988—

      (a) in subsection (1) for the words from "brought into account" to "1982" substitute "brought into account, within the meaning of that section,"; and

      (b) for subsection (2) substitute

      "(2) Where for that purpose reference falls to be made to more than one account recognised for the purposes of that section, the provisions of sections 432C to 432F apply separately in relation to each account.".
      (3) In section 432E(1) of the Taxes Act 1988 for the words from "of the items referred to in subsection (1)" to "paragraph (b))" substitute "to be taken into account in accordance with section 83(2) of the Finance Act 1989 (that is to say, the aggregate amount to be taken into account as receipts reduced by the aggregate amount to be taken into account as expenses)".
      (4) In section 436(3) of the Taxes Act 1988, after paragraph (a) insert—
      "(aa) section 83(3) of that Act shall not apply;".
      (5) In section 441(4) of the Taxes Act 1988, after paragraph (a) (and before the word "and" following that paragraph) insert—
      "(aa) section 83(3) of that Act shall not apply,".
      (6) In section 65(2) of the Finance (No.2) Act 1992 for paragraph
      (d) substitute
      "(d) section 83(2) of the Finance Act 1989 (amounts to be taken into account as receipts or expenses);".'.
      No. 45, in page 223, line 3, leave out
      'beginning on or after 1st January 1995'.
      No. 46, in page 223, line 17, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 444A of the Taxes Act 1988 (transfers of business) after subsection (3) insert
      "(3A) Any subsection (2) excess (within the meaning of section 432F(2)) which (assuming the transferor had continued to carry on the business transferred after the transfer) would have been available under section 432F(3) or (4) to reduce a subsection (3) figure (within the meaning of section 432F(l)) of the transferor in an accounting period following that which ends with the day on which transfer takes place—

      (a) shall, instead, be treated as a subsection (2) excess of the transferee, and

      (b) shall be taken into account in the first accounting period of the transferee ending after the date of the transfer (to reduce the subsection (3) figure or, as the case may be, to produce or increase a subsection (2) excess for that period),

      in relation to the revenue account of the transferee dealing with or including the business transferred.".
      ( ) In section 444A(5) of the Taxes Act 1988 for "subsection (2) or (3)" substitute "subsection (2), (3) or (3A)".'.
      No. 49, in page 229, line 28, after '82(1)(a)', insert—
      '( ) section 83(3) of that Act shall not apply,'.
      No. 39, in page 234, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 235 and insert—
      "'6A. In section 431D(1), the words "carried on through a branch or agency in the United Kingdom by an overseas life insurance company" shall be treated as inserted after the words "means life assurance business"." '.
      No. 50, in page 235, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' and insert—
      '.—(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 19AC to the Taxes Act 1988 is amended as follows.
      1596
      (2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

      (a) for "paragraph I" substitute "paragraph IC"; and

      (b) for "the word '1982'" substitute "the words 'brought into account, within the meaning of that section,"'.

      (3) In sub-paragraph (2) for "paragraph 1(6), (7) or (8)" substitute "any provision of paragraph 1C".
      (4) For sub-paragraph (3)'.
      No. 51, in page 235, line 44, leave out '1' and insert '1C'.
      No. 54, in page 235, line 45, leave out second 'and' and insert 'to'.
      No. 52, in page 239, line 21, at end insert—
      '.—(1) Schedule 8A to the Finance Act 1989 is amended as follows.
      (2) For paragraph 1 substitute—
      "1.—(1) In their application to an overseas life insurance company sections 83 and 83A of this Act shall have effect with the modifications specified in paragraphs IA to IC below.
      (2) In those paragraphs—

      (a) any reference to the Taxes Act 1988 is a reference to that Act as it has effect in relation to such a company by virtue of Schedule 19AC to that Act; and

      (b) any expression to which a meaning is given by section 11A of that Act has that meaning.

      1A.—(1) The reference in section 83(2)(a) to investment income shall be construed as a reference to such of the income concerned as is attributable to the branch or agency in the United Kingdom through which the company carries on life assurance business.
      (2) The reference to assets in section 83(2)(b) (as it applies apart from subsection (3) of that section) shall be construed as a reference to such of the assets concerned—

      (a) as are—

      (i) section 11(2)(b) assets;

      (ii) section 11(2)(c) assets; or

      (iii) assets which by virtue of section 11B of the Taxes Act 1988 are attributed to the branch or agency; or

      (b) as are assets—

      (i) (in a case where section 1 IC of that Act (other than subsection (9)) applies) of the relevant fund, or

      (ii) (in a case where that section including that subsection applies) of the relevant funds,

      other than assets which fall within paragraph (a) above.

      (3) In determining for the purposes of section 83(2) (as it applies apart from subsection (3) of that section) whether there has been any increase or reduction in the value (whether realised or not) of assets—

      (a) no regard shall be had to any period of time during which an asset held by the company does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (2) above; and

      (b) in the case of an asset which falls within paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, only the specified portion of any increase or reduction in the value of the asset shall be taken into account.

      For the purposes of paragraph (b) above the specified portion of any increase or reduction in the value of an asset is found by applying to that increase or reduction the same fraction as would, by virtue of section I IC of the Taxes Act 1988, be applied to any relevant gain accruing to the company on the disposal of the asset.
      (4) For the reference in section 83(3) to any amount being transferred into the company's long term business fund from other assets of the company, or otherwise added to that fund, there shall be substituted a reference to assets becoming assets of the long term business fund used or held for the purposes of the company's United Kingdom branch or agency, having immediately previously been held by the company otherwise than as assets of that fund or used or held otherwise than for those purposes.

      1597
      The amount of the increase in value under section 83(2)(b), as it applies in relation to such a transfer, shall be taken to be an amount equal to the value of the assets transferred.
      1B. The references in section 83A to the company's long term business shall be construed as references to the whole of that business or to the whole of that business other than business in respect of which preparation of a revenue account for the purposes of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 is not required.
      1C.—(1) Where for a period of account any investment income referred to in section 83(2)(a) is not otherwise brought into account within the meaning of that section, it shall be treated as brought into account for the period if it arises in the period.
      (2) Where for a period of account any increase in value referred to in section 83(2)(b) (as it applies apart from subsection (3) of that section) is not otherwise brought into account within the meaning of that section, it shall be treated as brought into account for the period if it is shown in the company's records as available to fund one or both of the following for the period, namely, bonuses to policy holders and dividends to shareholders.
      (3) Where for a period of account any reduction in value referred to in section 83(2) (as it applies apart from subsection (3) of that section) is not otherwise brought into account within the meaning of that section, it shall be treated as brought into account for the period if it is shown in the company's records as reducing sums available to fund one or both of the following for the period, namely, bonuses to policy holders and dividends to shareholders.
      (4) Where in any period of account any such transfer is made as is mentioned in section 83(3) which is not otherwise brought into account within the meaning of that section, it shall be treated as brought into account for the period in which it is made.".
      (3) In paragraph 2(7) for the words following paragraph (b) substitute—
      "and in paragraph (b) above "the specified portion" has the same meaning as in paragraph IA(3)(b) above."
      (4) After paragraph 2(7) insert—
      "(7A) For the purposes of this paragraph any expression to which a meaning is given by section 11A of the Taxes Act 1988 has that meaning.".'.
      No. 55, in page 239, line 33, after '(1)', insert—
      'The Taxes Act 1988 is amended as follows.
      ( )'.
      No. 47, in page 239, line 42, at end insert—
      '.—(1 ) The amendments made by paragraph 16 above have effect in relation to accounting periods ending on or after 1st January 1994.
      (2) In the first accounting period of a company ending on or after 1st January 1994 in which the subsection (3) figure for any category of business exceeds the subsection (2) figure, the subsection (2) figure shall be treated as increased by an amount not exceeding the amount or aggregate amount of any subsection (2) excesses in relation to that category of business for accounting periods beginning on or after 1st January 1990 and ending before 1st January 1994, but not so as to produce a subsection (2) excess for that period.
      For this purpose the subsection (2) excess for an accounting period beginning on or after I st January 1990 and ending before 1st January 1994 shall be determined without regard to the fact that in any other such accounting period the subsection (3) figure exceeded the subsection (2) figure.
      Expressions used in this sub-paragraph have the same meaning as in section 432F of the Taxes Act 1988.
      (3) Where a transfer mentioned in section 444A of the Taxes Act 1988 took place at the end of an accounting period of the transferor beginning on or after 1st January 1990 and ending before 1st January 1994, section 444A(3A) shall have effect in relation to the transfer as if it read—
      "(3A) Any subsection (2) excess (within the meaning of section 432F(2)) of the transferor for an accounting period
      1598
      beginning on or after 1st January 1990 and ending before 1st January 1994 which (assuming the transferor had continued to carry on the business transferred after the transfer) would have been available to increase the subsection (2) figure (within the meaning of section 432F(1)) of the transferor in the first accounting period ending on or after 1st January 1994 in which the subsection (3) figure exceeded the subsection (2) figure—

      (a) shall, instead, be treated as a subsection (2) excess of the transferee, and

      (b) shall be taken into account to increase the subsection (2) figure of the transferee in its first accounting period ending on or after 1st January 1994 in which the subsection (3) figure exceeds the subsection (2) figure, but not so as to produce a subsection (2) excess for that period,

      in relation to the revenue account of the transferee dealing with or including the business transferred.
      For this purpose the subsection (2) excess for an accounting period beginning on or after 1st January 1990 and ending before 1st January 1994 shall be determined without regard to the fact that in any other such accounting period the subsection (3) figure exceeded the subsection (2) figure.".'.
      No. 40, in page 240, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
      '(2) Where the policy or contract for any life assurance business was made before 1st November 1994, the amendments made by this Schedule (and the repeals consequential on those amendments) shall not have effect for determining whether the business is overseas life assurance business.
      (3) Where the policy or contract for any life assurance business effected by a company resident in the United Kingdom at or through a branch or agency outside the United Kingdom was made before 29th November 1994, subsections (5) to (9) of section 431D of the Taxes Act 1988 shall not have effect for determining whether the business is overseas life assurance business.'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 11

      PERSONAL PENSIONS: INCOME WITHDRAWALS
      Amendments made: No. 78, in page 246, line 41, leave out '70' and insert '35'.
      No. 79, in page 247, line 37, leave out '70' and insert '35'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 14

      VENTURE CAPITAL TRUSTS: MEANING OF "QUALIFYING HOLDINGS"
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 267, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
      '8.—(1) The requirement of this paragraph is that the value of the relevant assets—

      (a) did not exceed £10 million immediately before the issue of the relevant holding; and

      (b) did not exceed £11 million immediately afterwards.

      (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the value of the relevant assets is a reference—

      (a) in relation to a time when the relevant company did not have any qualifying subsidiaries, to the value of the gross assets of that company at that time; and

      (b) in relation to any other time, to the aggregate value at that time of the gross assets of all the companies in the relevant company's group.

      (3) For the purposes of this paragraph assets of any member of the relevant company's group that consist in rights against, or in shares in or securities of, another member of the group shall be disregarded.
      (4) In this paragraph references, in relation to any time, to the relevant company's group are references to the relevant company and its qualifying subsidiaries at that time.'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 17

      SETTLEMENTS: LIABILITY OF SETTLOR
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 283, line 27, leave out from 'is' to end of line 30 and insert
      'remitted to the United Kingdom in circumstances such that, if the settlor were actually entitled to that income when remitted, he would be chargeable to income tax by reason of his residence in the United Kingdom, it shall be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as arising under the settlement in the year in which it is remitted.'.
      No. 74, in page 284, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'insert' and insert—
      '.—(1) Section 677 of the Taxes Act 1988 is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2)(b) after "the amount of insert "that income taken into account under that subsection in relation to".
      (3) After subsection (2)(f)'.
      No. 75, in page 284, line 16, at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (9) after "one of the events specified in section 673(3)" insert "or, in the case of a sum paid on or after 6th April 1995, in one of the events specified in section 660A(4) or on the death under the age of 25 of any such person as is mentioned in section 660A(5)".'.
      No. 76, in page 284, line 16, at end insert—
      '. In section 678 of the Taxes Act 1988, omit subsection (7).'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 18

      DECEASED PERSONS' ESTATES
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 290, line 48, leave out from 'above' to end of line 50 and insert
      '(?the deemed single interest") were an interest of—

      (i) except in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) below applies, the person in respect of whose interest or previous interest the payment is made;

      (ii) in a case where the person entitled to receive the payment is any other person who has or has had an interest which is deemed to be comprised in the deemed single interest, that other person; and'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 29

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 343, column 3, leave out lines 20 to 24.
      No. 53, in page 343, line 53, column 3, leave out 'paragraphs 1(9) and' and insert 'paragraph'.
      No. 77, in page 345, line 23, column 3 at end insert— 'Section 678(7).'.
      No. 15, in page 346, line 11, at end insert—

      '(8A) STOCK LENDING

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1988c. 1.

      The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

      In section 129(1), the words "has contracted to sell securities, and to enable him to fulfil the contract, he".'.

      1600
      No. 20, in page 349, line 34, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—

      'In Schedule 9, in paragraph 27(4) the words from "who is required" to the end.'

      No. 21, in page 349, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Sir George Young.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.40 pm
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill consolidates the Budget strategy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is to sustain and strengthen Britain's growing economic recovery. That is now moving ahead powerfully across a broad and virtuous front of low inflation, high exports, rising investment, falling unemployment and solid growth.
      That picture is confirmed by last week's publication by the Central Statistical Office of the national accounts, which showed that Britain's national output rose by about 4 per cent. in 1994 as a whole—the highest rate for six years. Britain's is now the fastest growing major economy in Europe, and is forecast to remain so.
      That growth has been led by exports, which increased in 1994 by 14 per cent. by volume and by 9 per cent. by value. Those are record-breaking achievements, and they will be helped to power ahead by several clauses in the Bill, which give exporting companies easier access to new sources of capital.
      Our exporters are already doing spectacularly well not only in Europe but in the growing markets of the wider world. For example, last year our exports to Brazil increased by 27 per cent., to Singapore by 28 per cent., to South Korea by 28 per cent., to eastern Europe by 21 per cent. and to Malaysia by 35 per cent. The Confederation of British Industry survey published in March shows that the orders in British industry's export order books are at their highest point since records began.
      Behind those excellent export figures lie many other success stories. Exports, of course, consist of visibles and invisibles. Invisibles have been consistently strong for many years, and they are now becoming stronger. They will be strengthened further by new clause 12, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday and which will establish a gilt repo market, and by schedule 8, which will make it easier for British insurers to do business in Europe and across the world.
      As for visible exports, the success story that I can report to the House is the revitalisation of Britain's manufacturing industry exports. Britain is on its way back to being one of the successful workshops of the world, and manufacturing industry is playing a starring role in the recovery.
      Output rose by more than 4 per cent. in 1994—the fastest rate of growth since 1989. Manufacturing investment is up by more than 8 per cent. and manufacturing productivity by 4.5 per cent. Manufacturing industry employment increased by 40,000 in the past three months—the best increase for more than 15 years—and unit wage costs in manufacturing industry fell last year, thus making our industry increasingly competitive in the world marketplace.

      1601
      The clear message from business surveys and forecasters is that with the help of the measures in the Bill the strong performance by our manufacturing industry is expected to continue, just as we expect the surge in inward investment by overseas investors to continue. Many inward investors will be encouraged to come here by clause 35, which again sets Britain's rate of corporation tax as the lowest main CT rate in Europe.
      I know that the Opposition rather like to make dismissive and pessimistic noises about inward investment. For example, on 9 May last year the deputy leader of the Labour party was rash enough to say:
      "After 15 years of this deregulation I don't see much inward investment flooding in".
      As we know, the right hon. Gentleman's memory is a little defective sometimes. If he had to enlist the assistance of the constabulary to recognise his own Jaguar car, no wonder he finds it hard to recognise the great car factories that are springing up in Wales, Sunderland, Scotland and in the midlands as a result of inward investment. Perhaps the most appropriate response to that characteristically lugubrious forecast by Labour's deputy leader 11 months ago, would be the refrain from the old folk song, "Oh, no John, no John, no John, no."
      The facts of inward investment are so positive and so good for Britain that what we should all be saying enthusiastically is, "Oh, yes Toyota, yes Nissan, yes Samsung, yes Ford Motor Company, yes we welcome you here." As about 635,000 jobs have resulted from inward investment, clearly one of the driving forces behind the welcome expansion of Britain's industrial base has been the simple fact that foreign investors are giving a huge vote of confidence to Britain's economy.
      That is a remarkable contrast to the Opposition's vote of no confidence in the Bill that does so much to strengthen Britain's economy. It is a pretty sad reflection on the Labour party that it still takes the old neanderthal socialist view that a profit should be without honour in our own country.
      Talking of prophets, I am sorry that the Opposition's in-house Cassandra, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) cannot be with us today. I understand that he is in Scotland—no doubt striving to stir up gloom and despondency there over the 18 per cent. annual productivity growth north of the border between 1990 and 1995, the 14.6 per cent. surge in Scottish manufacturing exports in 1993, and the 100 inward investment projects a year—two per week—currently coming into Scotland. I wonder whether he is even managing to sound gloomy about the BSkyB inward investment project that is creating up to 1,000 full-time equivalent new jobs in his constituency.
      Conservatives will not let the doomwatcher from Dunfermline forget the most incompetent forecast of this Parliament, which he made on 17 March 1993:
      "1 make one Budget forecast—that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards."—pfficia/ Report, 17 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 289.]
      1602
      What actually happened is that ever since the hon. Gentleman made his false prophecy unemployment fell—that month, next month and month after month for two years. Not since the Labour Government appointed a Minister for drought—
      Mr. Robert Sheldonrose—
      Mr. Aitken: I think that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will remember that time. Not since the Labour Government appointed a Minister for drought has a Front Bencher's forecast been proved so resoundingly wrong.
      Mr. Sheldon: Surely the biggest forecast of all was the 2.95 deutschmark, which failed miserably. The signal mark of the Government is that they failed to keep us in the exchange rate mechanism; the results of that failure of policy are around us now.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: It was a success.
      Mr. Aitken: I am finding it difficult to follow the point that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is making. Interest rates are not the subject of forecasts; we are not wise enough—or wild enough—to do any such thing. Certainly, compared with the forecast made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, we have made no mistakes at all.
      Unemployment has fallen by 600,000 since that prediction was made, and it is still falling steadily at a rate of 1,000 a day. So the employment news, like the export news, the manufacturing industry news, the low inflation news and the economic growth news, is all good news. The good headlines about what is really happening in the economy will be helped considerably by the small print in the Bill and by the accompanying measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget.
      Work incentives, savings incentives and investment incentives are key ingredients of the Bill. The Government have recognised the cardinal importance of low rates of income tax to preserve work incentives, and the Bill takes a significant step towards our long-term aim, reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in his excellent speech in Birmingham on Saturday—a basic rate of income tax of 20p in the pound. Clause 33 widens the 20p band to £3,200—twice the increase necessary for indexation. That means that one in five of all taxpayers will now pay tax only at the lowest rate of 20p.
      Just as employees are being encouraged by incentives to take on work, employers are being encouraged to offer work to new employees. From the day after tomorrow—6 April—employer national insurance contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for employees earning less than £205 a week.
      The Bill is doing its best to get more people back to work, by means of the incentives that I have mentioned, but we have not neglected those who are too old to work. The Bill increases the income limit for the age-related personal tax allowance by £430—well above the inflation indexation rate. In a full year, the measure hands back £200 million to nearly 3 million pensioners.
      This is a Finance Bill for savers. It extends the very popular tax-exempt special savings accounts—TESSAs—by allowing those who have built up a nest egg in a TESSA to reinvest all or part of the capital that they have accumulated in a new TESSA up to a limit of £9,000 as

      1603
      soon as their account matures. It also widens the scope of personal equity plans, the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme to enhance the availability of finance and investment for industry, which is an important objective for the Government. The Bill's measures that achieve that should be widely welcomed by all those who understand how a modern economy works.
      The Government have grave doubts about whether the Opposition understand how a modern economy works. In our debates, their main preoccupation has not been with Britain's soaring exports, falling unemployment or increasing investment and economic growth. They seem to have an incorrigible aversion to mentioning the good news that is strengthening Britain as a successful world trading nation. That good news includes the fact that we had a £2 billion current account surplus in the second half of last year.
      Instead, the Opposition showed an obsession with tax loopholes, share option schemes and executive pay. The Bill has done a great deal to combat tax evasion but the great divide between the Government and the Opposition on the rewards for hard work and enterprise can be simply stated: we are against the abuses of commercial success, but the Opposition are against the rewards of commercial success.
      Good rewards are the lifeblood of an enterprise and export-led culture. It is a sign of success when many good businesses, some good business leaders and many good employees get well rewarded as a result of their successful efforts. Such people do not deserve to be described as "fat cats" by Opposition Members. They are simply hard-working people who have earned their rewards because they have contributed to successful businesses.
      We are determined to ensure that all Britain's wage and salary earners keep as much of their earnings as possible in their own pockets, and have to pay income tax only at a rate that is as low as we can fairly and prudently keep it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear in his speech at the weekend, the time when we can start cutting taxes again is coming closer. When we talk about cutting taxes as soon as it is prudent to do so, let us never forget that sound public finances are a precondition for low taxation, and that sound public finances are what the Government are steadily delivering as we put the world recession behind us.
      Although we had to make some unpopular tax increases and painful expenditure cuts, we are forecast to halve the nation's overdraft, or public sector borrowing requirement, between 1993–94 and this year. We plan to eliminate the PSBR and balance the budget by the end of the decade. Such good housekeeping is central to the Finance Bill and to the Budget, but it seems to be terra incognita to Opposition Front Benchers. All they seem to know about good housekeeping is the magazine of that name.
      Whenever we try to pin down the Opposition about serious good housekeeping issues, they perform their unconvincing imitation of the three notorious monkeys—see no policy, speak no policy, have no policy. By contrast to those three monkeys, a central thrust of the Government's policy is that we continue to maintain a constant downward pressure on public expenditure. That is why the Chancellor's Budget contained the
      1604
      announcement that we were cutting £29.5 billion off the planned public expenditure totals during the next three years. The Bill continues that process.
      I commend to the House the new clauses so ably moved yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in relation to the introduction of an open market in the sale and repurchase of Government securities. That sounds a technical subject, but the results are far from technical. As my hon. Friend explained, the arrangements introduced by the new clauses should result in significant savings for the taxpayer on the £20 billion debt interest bill.
      The Opposition do not have any serious proposals for controlling or reducing public expenditure. If one probes behind the Front-Bench monkeys' posture of see no policy, speak no policy, have no policy, one discovers pork barrel after pork barrel of ill-concealed public expenditure increases. For example, Opposition Front Benchers kept quiet about their policies on pensions when we debated clauses 56 to 59, which relate to pensions. It was with surprise that one picked up The Observer on 12 March to read the headline
      "Pensions for anyone of 60 says Labour".
      The story went on:
      "Under plans to be unveiled by the Labour party this week…the proposals would mean that people could get a pension five years earlier than under government plans for a retirement age of 65".
      The article reported that the shadow Social Security Secretary had persuaded Labour's Treasury team that his new policy would be cost-neutral. I hope that we can now be told the truth by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and that he will unveil his miraculous cost-neutral policy that offers to pay pensions five years ahead of schedule. One estimate is that such a policy might cost the taxpayer £13 billion. We would all like to hear how it could possibly be cost-neutral, and the hon. Gentleman could also explain why he did not unveil that miraculous new policy during debates on the Bill. I think we should be told.
      That is not the only explanation that we want. Veiled in the semantic obscurity of bland buzz words that are almost incomprehensible in their cost implications to the man on the Clapham omnibus, one will hear time and time again—especially in the speeches of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—expensive new Labour mantras such as "greater use of capital receipts", which is worth some £6 billion, "new regional assemblies and development agencies", "the introduction of a defence conversion agency", "a growth strategy for Europe"—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear.] Opposition Members are cheering, but they should wait until they hear the price tags. Reference is also made to "increased investment in economics and social fabric" and "an emergency employment programme to get people back to work", not to mention the notorious "post neo-classical endogenous growth theory".
      What the artful dodgers on the Opposition Front Bench must face up to is that those high-falutin' plans add up to a number of public spending promises, and promises have prices. The real price that will have to be paid for such departures from the foundations of sound public finances on which this Bill is built is higher taxation.
      The Opposition Front Benchers do not dare admit it, but the cat has been let out of the bag by the Labour party's most influential eminence rouge on its Back Benches, the former deputy leader and shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham,

      1605
      Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). His words in one of his many columns—this time in The Guardian on 13 March—will live in political infamy as they are quoted up and down the country in the coming months. He said:
      "Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the Party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the Party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation Party."
      Amen to that. The candid right hon. Gentleman has poured egg over the faces of the Opposition's Front-Bench team.
      The Opposition like higher taxation, and they are proud of it. They will inevitably have to increase the PSBR to the point where the initials stand for plunder, spend, borrow and raid. They now want to oppose the policies in the Bill and the Budget which are underpinning sound public finances, improving exports, encouraging investment, reducing unemployment, creating the best growth record in Europe and offering the British people higher real disposable incomes. We are on the right track, and the Bill will keep us there. I commend it to the House.
      7.57 pm
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Unlike the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I shall talk mainly about the Finance Bill. First, let me dismiss what comprised 90 per cent. of his speech. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first person not to take too much notice of what he reads in the newspapers, whether it be our plans or on other matters.
      The right hon. Gentleman made claims about the state of the economy and the achievements of our exporters, but if he believes that the Labour party will let this Government, after all they have done, walk off with the credit for the hard graft of our exporters, workers and managers, he is a bit too arrogant and complacent and he does not understand the British people. They know the mess that the Government's failures have got this country into. They know about the huge and irresponsible borrowing that the Government have stacked up, and they know that the Government broke every promise they made before the election.
      We hear talk from Conservative Back Benchers and from the chairman of the Conservative party, which the Chancellor is frantically trying to damp down, about tax cuts being on the way. That comes a bit rich from a Government who have not yet finished driving through all 20 of their tax increases since the election, which have added £812 extra in tax burden, year-on-year, to a typical family. All that, when living standards fell last year and are falling this year. That extra tax burden, which is in breach of every promise that the Chief Secretary and his hon. Friends made at the last general election, is what people will remember. I think that that takes care of 90 per cent. of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and now to the Finance Bill.
      The first thing to report is that this is a very different Bill from the one that confronted us on 17 January on Second Reading. The fact that it is so different is a great tribute to the work of my hon. Friends, the arguments that they mounted and the campaign that they undertook. Labour, assisted on occasion by some Conservative Members and rather less often by the Liberal Democrats, has forced substantial changes on the Government.
      1606
      We started with the Government's momentous defeat on value added tax on fuel on the Floor of the House—we did not hear much about that from the Chief Secretary. In Committee, they were also defeated on the tax simplification proposal of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I understand that that was the first time in the memory of the Clerks that a new clause tabled by anyone other than the Government had been added to a Finance Bill.
      Labour has mounted effective pressure in the country on the matters covered by the Bill, which forced the Government to back down, for example, on the extension of tax privileges for executive share options to part-time directors, when even Ministers had to recognise that what they were advocating was indefensible. There is a string of other changes, from vehicle excise duty to the level of pools betting duty, where the Government have been made to change their position, whether by the force of votes or public opinion, or the force of argument.
      It is worth running through the changes that make this such a significantly different Bill: the Government's defeat on VAT on fuel on the Floor of the House, when we held it at 8 per cent; the forced withdrawal of the Government proposal to extend tax breaks on executive share options to part-time directors; the prevention, or at least the damage limitation exercise as my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) described it, of the imposition of vehicle excise duty on carriers on the Scottish islands and the Scilly Isles; the fact that we stopped the Tories increasing vehicle excise duty on farm vehicles, which was set to increase to a maximum of £5,000; the fact that we forced a cut in proposed vehicle excise duty on recovery vehicles, from the Government's proposed maximum of £5,000 to £750; the fact that, earlier today, we secured concessions on the tax treatment of capital borrowing from the Government for housing associations and universities; the fact that we defeated the Government in Committee, with the help of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, to secure examination of the simplification of the tax system; the fact that we successfully proposed taxation changes to assist settlements for accident and injury victims; the concessions that we won for disabled drivers of company cars; the exemption from duty for non-prize amusement machines; and the 5 per cent. reduction of pools betting duty, to 32 per cent. It is a formidable list.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is using the royal "we" so wildly that I feel I must be listening to the film, "The Madness of King George". Not one Labour amendment was carried and so the idea that all that was due to Labour's influence is rubbish. My hon. Friends and I rightly listened carefully to representations from industry and others, but the notion that Labour should get one ounce of credit shows that power has gone to the hon. Gentleman's head.
      Mr. Smith: The biggest concession of all, on VAT on fuel, was forced on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government Front Bench.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose—
      Mr. Smith: The fact that we have been so successful on this Bill is obviously getting to Ministers and is bringing them to the Dispatch Box. They are worried that we have been an effective channel for public opinion on

      1607
      the issues in the Bill and that, one way or another, we have helped to secure so many changes; clearly, that upsets them.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman was so against the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel and power, why did not the Labour party support the amendment tabled by another Opposition party to reduce the rate from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent?
      Mr. Smith: Because everyone knew that that was an opportunist amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Conservative Members know that is true. That amendment could have resulted in the loss of the change in VAT to 8 per cent. It could have forced it back to 17.5 per cent., which is where the Conservative party wanted it. Having won that victory, we were determined that we would do nothing to put the rate at risk, nor will we do anything this evening that would put it at risk, but more of that later.
      I was surprised to hear the Chief Secretary claim a share of the glory on the Government side for what has happened to the Finance Bill because he had little to do with it in Committee. On one visit, we saw him reading Will Hutton's book, which resulted not in radical amendments to the Bill but in a rather acerbic review in The Sunday Times in which he conceded that
      "British businesses are still finding it difficult to adjust to the new economic environment"—
      that is one way of putting it. He continued:
      "Successful competitiveness can be uncomfortable."
      That obvious reference to his rivalry with the Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who is going to lead the Conservative party from the right in opposition, prompted me to compare their contributions to Finance Bill proceedings. I am sorry to say that it is not all good news for the present Chief Secretary, who has not been doing enough to display his talents. The sad truth is that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Chief Secretary last year, had spoken more after eight days of the Committee stage than this Chief Secretary did during the entire proceedings. The former Chief Secretary made three times as many speeches in total, five times as many interventions and managed to be present for 87 per cent. of the sittings, as compared to the present Chief Secretary's 44 per cent.
      We have heard a good deal in this Finance Bill on performance-related pay. It seems that the matter is in the Chief Secretary's hands and that a bonus will shortly be transferred from the present occupant of the office to his predecessor, perhaps with a well-earned cut for the Financial Secretary, the Minister of State and the Paymaster General, who worked hard on the Bill, as we would all agree.
      It would not be fair for me to refer to the work accomplished on the Bill without drawing the attention of the House and the country to the performance of the Liberal Democrats because it was an incredible record. Between them, they were present for barely half the time. They were missing for our crucial tied vote on pools betting duty, their representatives on the Finance Bill Committee are not even here this evening, and they did not turn up in Committee to move their new clauses on child care. It will not escape the notice of the country that, when it comes to action on child
      1608
      care or anything else for that matter, people can look with confidence to the Labour party, not to the Liberal Democrats. We have taken our opportunities to improve this Bill where they have relinquished theirs.
      As a consequence, there is much in the Bill that is better than when it started. Areas of concern remain, however. Even with the small amendments to the regime on venture capital trusts, allowing a larger proportion of non-voting shares, which the Government conceded yesterday and which responded in part to points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) and I made earlier, we remain concerned that the venture capital trusts and enterprise investment scheme provisions in the Bill may do more to attract savings into property-backed, lower-risk investments than into the higher-risk, higher-tech areas intended, but we shall see what happens as the scheme proceeds.
      As we said yesterday, we remain concerned, too, that the introduction of self-assessment in taxation contains some big hostages to fortune on which, as we enter a general election period, the Chief Secretary and his hon. Friends may yet have cause to regret opposing our proposed postponement.
      When people look at the Bill, they will see that its most outstanding political aspect is the Government's defeat over the rate of VAT on fuel. People will remember that, when the Conservatives were banging through tax increase after tax increase—20 in total, adding up to an extra £812 imposed on a typical family—the only tax cut was in the prospective rate of VAT on fuel. They will remember that Labour's campaigning and votes, along with those of the smaller parties and a handful of Conservative rebels, won that tax cut for the general public. The Bill incorporates that victory, which is one of its most important features.
      As I said in Committee on the Floor of the House, the Opposition intend to put neither that VAT victory nor their other gains at risk. That is why we shall not divide the House against giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight. No one should suppose, however, that this Bill is enough. Britain needs effective action for jobs, investment and partnership to create a truly dynamic economy and a fair society. For that, we need a different Finance Bill and a different Government.
      8.10 pm
      Mr. Forman: At the end of our debate on this Finance Bill, which has, on the whole, been good humoured, I can strike agreement with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on one point: his strictures on the Liberal party. I have personal experience of coping with the Liberals in my constituency, and his point was well made.
      The Finance Bill, and the two Budgets of which it is the legislative consequence, are the latest welcome instalment of the Chancellor's prudent and successful fiscal policy. It is prudent because it has sought to restrain public expenditure by some £24 billion over three years, off the control total. It has also sought to achieve a broadly neutral fiscal adjustment for 1995–96. It is successful because it has contributed to greater confidence in the financial markets, measures to improve the supply side of the economy and the continuing economic recovery based on non-inflationary growth, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, is helping to reduce unemployment by about 1,000 a day and to create new wealth and jobs.

      1609
      The nature of that recovery and how we are prospering here and overseas has many interesting aspects. One of the more interesting facts that was not picked up in the Sturm and Drang of parliamentary questions to the Chancellor on Thursday was the point that he made in answer to a question about trade with the far east. He pointed out that
      "we have now restored the old level of investment that Britain used to have before its past portfolio went during the wars, and the flows into this country are extremely valuable—as valuable as visible trade to the well-being of this country."—[Official Report, 30 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1172.]
      The importance of both inward investment, which is often debated in the House, and remittances, which is the point that the Chancellor was making, can be underestimated. In a global economy, we must all pay more attention to those valuable aspects of our income flows. Overseas assets can be beneficial to this country, as other countries such as Japan are finding. It is not just a matter of retaining confidence here to attract inward investment; it is also a question of creating a fiscal and monetary structure within which our firms, many of which are now multinational, can prosper and invest successfully overseas. This country can see the benefits of that repatriated income later on.
      In those satisfactory circumstances, it would be folly for the House to follow any of the Opposition's economic advice. The House and the country should note that, in this respect, both the Labour and Liberal parties are, by instinct and tradition, high-spending parties.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Liberals have gone.
      Mr. Forman: Yes, I see that they have gone.
      If the Labour and Liberal parties are high-spending parties, they are unavoidably parties of high taxation and borrowing. I remind the House that the last Labour Government—that seems a long time ago—introduced the highest marginal rates of tax on income in peacetime history. The present Labour party has voted against nearly every income tax cut made by this Government over the past 15 or 16 years. Furthermore, records show that Labour Governments tend to borrow more than Conservative Governments. For example, the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government borrowed, on average, nearly 7 per cent. of national income a year whereas, since 1979, in spite of the difficulties of two recessions, we have borrowed on average 2 per cent. a year.
      Not the least important point about that broad contrast between the two sides of the House is that the views that I now put to the House are largely shared by the unsentimental and realistic British public, particularly as represented in a recent MORI poll published in The Times. It showed that 62 per cent. of the middle classes expected a future Labour Government, were there to be one, to increase the burden of income tax; 23 per cent. thought that their standard of living would decline rather than improve under a Labour Government; 21 per cent. thought that a future Labour Government would not keep their promises; and 38 per cent. doubted—indeed, disputed—the idea that a future Labour Government would keep inflation under control. If the current political scene is a battle for the hearts and minds of the middle class and middle England, we can see that those people have
      1610
      already understood, perhaps more clearly than we sometimes give them credit for, exactly where the national advantage and their own advantage lie.
      Mr. Betts: In response to the hon. Gentleman's comment that 21 per cent. of the middle class would not expect a future Labour Government to keep their promises, has he any idea what percentage of middle England would expect a Conservative Government to keep their promises, given what we have seen in the past few years?
      Mr. Forman: I would need notice of that question, because the poll on which I draw focused principally on the Labour party's struggle to convince the middle class.
      In case people are tempted to think that Liberal policy is anything more than what I believe it to be, which is a dilute version of Labour policy, they need only look at Liberal policy in areas of the country where, temporarily, the Liberals control local authorities to see the extent to which their spending policies are irresponsible and even feckless as they do not give correct priority to sensitive areas such as education.
      I commend my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for the various parts that they have played in this Finance Bill, and I commend the Chancellor and the Government as a whole on introducing yet another prudent and successful Budget.
      8.17 pm
      Mr. Sheldon: I rise only briefly to express my appreciation of the work of the Opposition Front Bench and the way in which they have handled this Finance Bill.
      We are in the shadow of the consequences of black Wednesday. The Government pledged themselves to maintain a deutschmark at 2.95 and failed miserably when the crunch came. We now have a deutschmark at 2.20 or 2.34 and a dollar at 1.60. For the first time in my 30 years in the House, I feel that the exchange rate is about right. Until now, it has always been wrong. It is the English genius to achieve things through mistakes, and that is how the Government have brought about a proper and defensible exchange rate. I would not like it to go any lower. Every time that I have made this sort of speech, I have said that I wanted lower exchange rates to encourage investment and our manufacturing exports. Now we have it about right, so will the Government please just leave it alone and let it continue to provide the wealth that the country needs?
      The Government will now make the great mistake of talking about future tax changes. They should understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs flexibility. One cannot decide those things two years in advance; surely the reversal of the decision on VAT on domestic fuel showed that. One must make a judgment at the time. It is wrong to limit the Chancellor in any way.
      I would draw attention to the fine tuning that we now have using interest rates. Conservative Governments in the past always opposed fine tuning. Now they talk about quarters of a per cent. in those matters.
      The monthly meeting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England is one of the worst decisions of all. Denis Healey used to say to the Governor of the Bank of England, Gordon Richardson, "I wish I had your job." Today, the Governor

      1611
      of the Bank of England has much more power than he ever had then. I am pretty sure that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to change jobs, too.
      Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench on achieving one of the great reverses, on VAT on fuel. That will be something for which they will be long remembered and long appreciated.
      8.20 pm
      Mr. John Townend: Never in my parliamentary life have we debated the Finance Bill against such a favourable economic background; yet the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) says that we are in a mess. Underlying inflation 1.8 per cent. last month, exports soaring—we are in a mess. The balance of payments in balance—we are in a mess. Unemployment coming down month by month—and the hon. Gentleman says that we are in a mess.
      The French level of unemployment is now—
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Townend: No; I have only four minutes.
      The French level of unemployment, with a socialist President, is now 50 per cent. more than ours. The Spanish level of unemployment, with a Socialist Government, is treble ours. The budget deficit is decreasing and we have a budget deficit reduction plan that will bring us into balance by the end of the decade.
      My only regret is that to bring that budget deficit under control we have had to accept tax increases, the last of which are in the Budget. I broadly approve of the Government's strategy, but everyone knows that I always prefer to cut public expenditure instead of increasing taxes. I welcome the fact that the Government now appear to have accepted that, henceforth, our first priority must be to cut public expenditure.
      I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that we need to launch a crusade against overmanning, extravagance and waste in the public sector. Wherever one looks in the public sector, at local government level or at national Government level, one can find glaring examples of the taxpayer's money being unnecessarily spent. I have about 20 examples here. Time will not allow me go into them, but I shall take them up in due course with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
      The public sector is bloated. If one questions that point of view, one has only to consider the privatised industries. Who would have believed that they could slim down their work force so much while improving the service to the customer and reducing charges in real terms? Indeed, their great success is one of the reasons why we have been embarrassed by the profits made and the share options given. No one dreamed that the nationalised industries were so overmanned.
      If we could achieve only 50 per cent. of the savings in manpower that the privatised industries have made or that every private firm that had to slim down during the recession has achieved, we would have no difficulty in cutting taxes substantially.
      1612
      I hope that this Finance Bill marks the end of an era in two respects. First, never again should we have a Finance Bill as long as this. It shows, in my opinion, that the Inland Revenue is out of control. It is obsessed with the minutiae of tax avoidance and benefits in kind. The Institute of Chartered Accountants described the Bill as "another dose of obscurity" and protested about the complexity in drafting style. I therefore welcome the Treasury's proposals to consider giving the work of drafting future Finance Bills to the private sector.
      I hope that the Bill before us will be the last Finance Bill for many, many years in which the overall burden of taxation is increased. I can assure the Chancellor that he will have all my support in achieving those aims. I am sure that, with our present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, after the spending round this year, when we come to the Budget in November, we shall see the start of many, many Conservative Budgets when the burden on the taxpayer is reduced.
      The Conservative party is the party whose philosophy is that we should leave as much money as possible in the wage earner's pocket, because we believe that he can take decisions about the way to spend his money better than the Government can. The Opposition believe that they should take as much money out of the wage earner's pocket as possible, because they believe that the state can take decisions better than the individual. That is the big difference between us. That is the blue water.
      I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench for all their efforts to reduce public spending.
      8.25 pm
      Mr. Denis MacShane: The economic illiteracy that we have just heard, and that we heard in the opening speech, is great even by the standards of the Conservative Benches. The plain fact is that, when the Conservatives entered office in 1979, Britain stood fourth or fifth in per capita gross domestic product in Europe; we now stand 1 lth, sinking down the world league tables of growth and distribution. No economic legerdemain can reduce that fact.
      I shall return to the Bill, because that is what we are here to debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, it is an extraordinarily regressive Bill. In spite of the great victory won last November, when the proposal for VAT at 16 per cent. was defeated, nearly every measure proposed in the Bill—we do not have time to go through the clauses—has been regressive.
      Secondly, where I do agree with the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is that, at 351 pages, the Bill is far too long.
      Thirdly, the Bill is absurdly complex—more complex than any comparable legislation for any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country of the same size.
      Fourthly, it is a remarkably insular, inward-looking Bill. An amendment to clause 123, in which there was a suggestion of examining ways in which we might consider taxation internationally, was thrown out in Committee.
      Fifthly, it is an extraordinarily short-term Bill. Thank goodness the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was successful in moving his amendment on shipping, with our support, and the Government finally accepted

      1613
      that, because that measure extended slightly the time scale to back the tax relief necessary for our shipbuilding industry. However, for every other measure, the continual refrain was of resistance to the development of what one might call patient capitalism.
      Sixthly, without question, it was a Bill designed in the Ritz and very much for the Ritz. Treasury Ministers made their
      "proper prostrations to the Gods of the market-place",
      but underlying the focus of the Bill is a shift from a wage-earning to a rentier society. That should worry anyone who believes that income should be related to hard work, not to turning up now and then to sign off, or not as the case may be, on arms exports to a country under ban from the United Nations.
      Seventhly, in the handling of the Bill there was some arrogance on the part of the Treasury Ministers. What does one expect from three Old Etonians and one Old Harrovian, all at Oxford? It was old England, which, thank goodness, was able to take some advice from new Labour. However, in spite of their politeness, their courtesy—which I acknowledge, because that is the class from which they come—there was a haughty disregard for any of the arguments made by Conservative Members, their colleagues. I ask for no pity or consideration for our opinions, but when their own side made sensible and helpful suggestions—of course very few of them coming from the Old Etonian and Old Harrovian gang—they were knocked back.
      Eighthly, this is a profoundly anti-manufacturing Bill. I defy the Financial Secretary, in replying, to identify more than five clauses that will genuinely help industry. Last week, I had the honour of hosting a visit in the House from the Rotherham chamber of commerce. Those on the visit talked about education, skills and the lack of demand. There is nothing in the Bill that helps the manufacturing sector in a concrete way. I was particularly disappointed that the amendment on employee share ownership plans, which was moved by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and supported by me, was so scornfully rejected.
      Ninthly, the Bill is for rentiers, not wage earners. Tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans have been mentioned. But we must be careful, because we shall face problems in the future if we focus only on unearned income and unearned rents instead of creating a society in which value is added by people's work and income comes more directly from that work.
      Tenthly, taxation is more than a contract between Government and the governed. It is the definition of the duties and responsibilities that society accepts in exchange for the freedom to make and spend money as it wishes. It is the equilibrium which is so tragically lacking in our two-nation society. We live in a society of two unbalanced halves, which fiscal policy should seek to connect, one to the other.
      We need a major reform of our taxation system. With this Finance Bill, the Conservatives have shown that theirs is the party of high taxation and low lies. Only a new Treasury Front-Bench team can put that right.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I am sorry that we did not hear more from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the passage of the Finance Bill. He read
      1614
      his speech with feeling and we enjoyed it to some extent, but it was thoroughly unconvincing and demonstrated why the Government face difficulties.
      It is not surprising that the Chief Secretary did not speak much about the Finance Bill, as he was not present in Committee very often. The only thing that can be said about him is that he was present on slightly more occasions than the Liberal Democrats, who were hardly there at all. One was bound to wonder why they asked for places on the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill—perhaps that is something that the Committee of Selection might want to take into account next year. [Interruption.]
      Even as I speak, the Liberal Democrats cannot stand the heat and have withdrawn from the Chamber. The Liberal Democrat Benches now remain empty. I hope that those who sometimes pick up their press releases will ask them exactly how much time they spend in the Chamber when they are given the opportunity to talk about their economic policies or anything else.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned that the Chief Secretary was hardly ever in Committee. His absence lends some credibility to his claim that when he was the director of a certain company he did not spend much time there. Clearly, not attending meetings and not being there seems to be a trade mark of the Chief Secretary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East also said that the Chief Secretary spent some time reading Will Hutton's excellent book, which was indirectly plugged by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I also noticed that for some time the Chief Secretary was reading a book entitled "The Law of Islam". I do not know why he was reading it, but perhaps, sooner or later, we will find out what he was so interested in.
      The Chief Secretary's speech was unconvincing. He talked about success, but the truth is that people do not feel that they live in a successful country. They do not believe that they are being successful themselves and they do not believe that Britain is successful. The people feel cheated and deceived. They were promised tax cuts in 1992, but they got tax increases—there have been 20 different tax increases since 1993 alone. A typical family is paying ?800 a year more in tax.
      The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) talked about the instincts and philosophy of the Government and the Conservative party. We know the Government's instincts—to say one thing during the election campaign and to do completely the opposite thereafter. The Government said that they would reduce taxes year on year. Instead, they have increased taxes year on year. It is no wonder that people do not trust the Conservatives on tax or anything else.
      It would have been interesting if, when the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) reviewed the opinion poll in The Sunday Times, he had told us its conclusion. If I am not mistaken, despite what he said, the majority of people, no matter where they stand—whether they are on middle incomes, lower incomes or no income—are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Government and do not believe one word that the Government say about taxation or anything else.
      Just last weekend, we were told that there would be a Tory relaunch. We saw the Prime Minister appearing on the Anne and Nick show to announce his relaunch. The

      1615
      relaunched Tory party is the party that we have known for the past 16 years. It is the party that is prepared to say anything to get elected and do the opposite once given power.
      Over the weekend, the Tory party chairman said that he backed a proposal for a rolling programme of tax cuts. He said that that was an excellent idea. A few hours later, the Secretary of State for Employment said that he was not so sure. Tonight, the Chancellor told the Tory Back Benchers to dampen their expectations as there was no guarantee that the Government could deliver.
      The Government strategy for relaunching themselves has fallen apart after three days. The truth is that the Government are bankrupt of ideas and have no idea about what to do with this country. What we see now is the Government's desperate attempt to cling to power by holding out the vague hope that there might be something better some time in the future.
      We have had 20 tax rises since 1992. The Government may say that their instinct is to cut taxes, but their action shows something different. The only tax cut that we have had in 1995 has been a Labour tax cut, when VAT on domestic fuel was cut from 17.5 per cent. to 8 per cent. That is not all—as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said, the Opposition have won a string of victories over the Government.
      One victory seems to sum up what is wrong with the Government. We heard about it from the hon. Member for Bridlington and the Chief Secretary when they talked about executive share options. This afternoon, the Government were forced to amend a proposal in the Finance Bill to ensure that part-time directors could not exploit the provisions relating to executive share options. What the Government said was instructive. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury seemed to extol the idea that people should be given executive share options without reference to the company's success. That was in stark contrast to the Prime Minister who, at the outset of the Finance Bill, said that nothing could be done, it was nothing to do with the Government and all to do with private companies. But half way through the spring of this year, in the midst of the Finance Bill, the Prime Minister suddenly arrived in the Chamber and said that the granting of share options and huge salary increases in privatised utilities could not be justified. He executed a complete U-turn, which was followed by another one two days later, when it seemed to be suggested that nothing could be done about it.
      The Government's attitude to the unwarranted and excessive executive pay options and excessive pay rises in privatised utilities seems to sum up all that is wrong with the Government's tax policy—a complete and utter lack of fairness. They show a complete disregard for fairness, which should be installed within any tax system. Their attitude towards share options and the unjustified pay increases taken by the bosses of privatised utilities sums up everything that is wrong with the Government's approach to tax and fairness.
      We welcome good news when we see it, but we criticise the problems that the country still has—the lack of manufacturing capacity, the lack of industrial policy and, above all, the lack of confidence in the Government. We are unimpressed by the casual promises being made
      1616
      by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and other members of the Conservative party. People do not trust the Tories on tax or anything else.
      We will not oppose the Bill tonight because it contains one crucial benefit for the majority of people in this country: the reduction of VAT to 8 per cent. That is what people will remember about the 1994–95 Finance Bill. They will remember that the Labour party brought the one tax cut for those who face so much hardship and misery.
      We shall continue to hound the Government for their failures. We welcome any good news, but the Government have no answers and no suggestions about what we should do in future. The country has lost confidence in the Government. Later this week and at the beginning of next month the electorate in England and Wales will show that they have no confidence in the Government. It will not be long before the electorate turn to a party that has the answers and enjoys the confidence of the people in this country.
      8.39 pm
      Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who spoke in the brief Third Reading debate for reminding the House of the positive measures in the Budget and the positive good news. Underlying inflation is below 3 per cent.—something we have not seen since 1961 for such a sustained time—unemployment is falling by 1,000 a day and the current account is in broad balance. We have inward investment, jobs and an economy that is growing and strengthening.
      The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was unable to tell his local business men what was in the Budget to help businesses. One of the largest measures, involving some £600 million, was actually for businesses. It was the transitional relief scheme for the business rates—something that had escaped his memory.
      The Opposition failed to remind us of some of their new clauses, such as the one which, for the first time, would have provided tax breaks for tax planning. It had all the accountants in the country with their mouths watering. It proposed for the first time tax concessions for tax avoidance.
      We heard nothing from the Opposition about this week's reductions in national insurance contributions—something that they overlooked—in addition to cuts in the previous Budget. The cost of hiring someone on half average earnings has fallen from £710 a year in 1993–94 to £610 in 1995–96.
      The Opposition mentioned tax increases, but, for an average household, this week's tax increase amounts to no more than the price of a lottery ticket and is dwarfed by the £5 a week by which we expect households to be better off on average after tax and inflation.
      There is, indeed, one party that has not come clean with this country on its tax policy—the Labour party. For five months, when the Finance Bill was in Committee, we asked Labour Members time and again basic economic questions. Will they spend more or less than a Conservative Government? Will they tax more or less than a Conservative Government? Will they borrow more or less than a Conservative Government? That is when the sound bites end and the air bites begin. Labour Members have no right to be taken seriously as a party until they come clean on their economic policy.

      1617
      Nothing has looked so contrived as the Labour party's recent claim to be the taxpayer's friend. Could one imagine Labour Back Benchers piling into a room on the Committee corridor and giving the shadow Chancellor advice on how to reduce public expenditure and the burden of taxation? If they offered such advice, could one imagine him taking it?
      The contrast between the advice that the Opposition receive and the advice that the Government receive could not be more stark. I note from today's DailyMail that, whereas my colleagues talk to the Chancellor about reducing taxation, union leaders have been stridently reminding the Leader of the Opposition of their expectations. Not only do Labour Members portray themselves unconvincingly as the taxpayer's friends; they have also sought to represent themselves as standing up for the values of middle England. If they want to play political poker with the Conservative party on traditional values, we will take them on. When they have run out of chips, the Conservative party will have plenty left.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 3, 4 and 5.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      BUILDING SOCIETIES
      That the draft Building Societies (Commercial Assets) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
      CHARITIES
      That the draft Charities (Trustee Investments Act 1961) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
      FAMILY LAW
      That the draft Child Support and Income Support (Amendment) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

      Infant Formula
      8.43 pm
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move,
      That the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 (S.1., 1995, No. 77), dated 15th January 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th January, be revoked.
      When the new regulations that we are discussing came in, all looked well, briefly. It seemed that at last we had law controlling the advertising of infant formula milks, but it soon became clear that the law was the weakest just where it was most needed. The new regulations allow the advertising of infant formula feeds in the health service, reversing a major part of the World Health Organisation code to which the Government signed up.
      The new regulations allow advertising in maternity wards, clinics, doctors' surgeries and all the pre and post-natal wards, just where new mothers are most vulnerable, under the greatest pressure and in need of impartial information, advice and support, and just where the advertisers most want to get at them.
      When the Government were consulting on the new regulations, they received 231 letters, 216 calling for a ban on advertising baby milk in the health service, from organisations including the British Medical Association, UNICEF, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Paediatric Association and all 48 of the relevant professional organisations. The only people supporting advertising of baby milk in the health service were the formula manufacturers themselves and—surprise, surprise—advertising agencies. To whom did the Government listen? The formula feed manufacturers.
      Save the Children put the case clearly in a letter on 17 February, saying that it is
      "very disturbing to know that the views of all health, consumer and development bodies have been discounted and only the views of the baby food industry have been taken into account".
      Even the baby food manufacturers acknowledge that breast is best. Some may say that I am a living example of that, having been breast-fed. Of course, I may have been a foot shorter and not quite as intelligent had I not been breast-fed.
      Breast-feeding develops a better brain, providing vital materials for the links within the brain. Gastroenteritis is 10 times more likely among bottle-fed babies. Infant gastroenteritis costs the national health service £18 million a year. Breast-feeding is acknowledged to protect against respiratory infections, glue ear and diabetes.
      The high sugar levels in bottle feeds are one of the major causes of tooth decay in babies, leading to 21,000 cases of dental work on infants and the massive amount of pain and suffering that that causes, yet the new law will allow bottle feeds to be described as "sucrose-free". Some research, still in its early stages, shows that breast-feeding also protects the mother from breast and ovarian cancer.
      Humans as a species have been around for at least 4 million years. It stands to reason that the milk produced by our species for our species is best developed for our needs and we should do everything to promote breast-feeding.
      Only last week I spoke to representatives of the industry, who told me that advertising is all about promoting one brand over another, gaining market share

      1619
      and giving information to mothers. However, advertising is first and foremost about selling a product and often companies will sell their product using emotive and pressurising messages. One would have to be naive to believe that baby milk advertising is about giving impartial information to mothers.
      We are not anti-choice on the issue; mothers have a right to choose whether to breast-feed. Some mothers are unable to breast-feed for a whole range of reasons and they need to be told which is the best infant formula for their babies by impartial professionals providing correct information, but giving advertisers the run of the health service is not the way to do it.
      I am certain that we shall hear from the Government that mothers are grown-up adults who can make up their own minds on whether to believe the advertiser. I am even more certain that it has been a long time since any Conservative Members were in a maternity ward—[Interruption.] Of course, I am sure that that does not apply to the Minister, who looks far too young to be a mother.
      I have here a so-called information booklet produced by the infant formula industry. It is supposed to be about breast-feeding. There are two huge centrefolds of babies, one with the caption:
      "I hope they give me Cow and Gate".
      That is in the middle of a document about breast-feeding.
      Another caption is even more disgraceful. It states:
      "Did you know it makes a baby's brain grow?",
      referring not to breast milk, but to Cow and Gate. Bearing in mind the latest information on early links within the human brain developed by breast-feeding, that must be an exaggeration, to say the least.
      All the images and words send out the message: breast is best, but bottle is just as good, which is simply not true. It is what the Government believe is the best way to give new mothers information about baby nutrition.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not the hon. Gentleman slightly startled that there is currently one female on the Opposition Benches and four females on the Government Benches?
      Mr. Jones: I am not in the least bit startled; it gives me something nice to look at—but I suppose that that is a sexist remark.
      All the 48 professional bodies involved in the debate believe that advertising of breast milk substitutes should be banned. Mothers have a right to impartial information, which is currently being denied to them. United Kingdom baby food manufacturers admit to spending at least £4 million to £5 million on straight brand advertising. They also imply that they spend money on sponsorship, which we suspect totals at least £8 million. The Government cannot hope to match that figure, and they spend about £130,000 in supporting breast-feeding.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Really?
      Mr. Jones: Yes, really.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said that Conservative Members have not been in a maternity
      1620
      ward recently. I have not been in a maternityward as a customer, but I regularly visit the maternity ward in my constituency at Christmas. Our hospital encourages women to breast-feed.
      Mr. Jones: I certainly hope that it does. However, it also distributes booklets such as the one to which I referred earlier, which has "Cow and Gate" written all over it, and it distributes advertisements such as the one that I have just shown the hon. Lady.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hospitals in the hon. Gentleman's constituency may, but mine does not.
      Mr. Jones: I am very pleased to hear that, but I would like to know how many women in the hospital in the hon. Lady's constituency breast-feed. Perhaps she might ask them that during her next Christmas visit; she may get a shock if she does. Perhaps she would like to give me the figures now.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I ask every woman in the ward whether they propose to continue to breast-feed, and three out of four say that they do.
      Mr. Jones: I am very pleased to hear it, but that is not the kind of mainstream information that we have received and that the Government push out. I would like the hon. Lady to visit women in clinics and to ask them whether they are still breast-feeding. I think that she will find that they are not, because that is the current trend.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: My daughter-in-law is currently breast-feeding. Are there not statistics available which show the percentage of mothers in the United Kingdom who are breast-feeding'? They reveal that the number is declining and that fewer women are breast-feeding now than were breast-feeding in 1980. Only 53 per cent. of mothers breast-feed their babies at age one week. That is only one statistic and there are more available. The evidence is quite clear.
      Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is quite correct and I shall refer to those figures in a moment. The fact is that many women would like to breast-feed—no doubt they are among the women whom the hon. Lady meets in her Christmas visits to the hospital. However, an awful lot of women do not continue to breast-feed and one of the reasons is the flood of advertising to which they are subjected.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): What?
      Mr. Jones: The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the lowest estimate of spending by baby food manufacturers is £6 per baby. The Government spend only 16p per baby—that is hardly a level playing field. Because of the Government's shabby funding on promoting breast-feeding, for the first time UNICEF was forced to spend money in a western developed nation—in Britain in 1994. The Royal College of Midwives has been forced to produce a booklet that explains simply and fairly the nutritional advantages of mothers' milk over formula, because the Government have not done so.
      The World Health Organisation code, which the Government supported and signed in 1991 and for which they reaffirmed their support in 1994, has been completely ignored. Allowing advertising in the health service represents a huge climbdown, and the Government should

      1621
      admit it. In another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Baroness Cumberlege, stated that the new regulations go beyond the minimum directive requirements of our WHO obligations. The WHO international code on marketing breast milk substitutes states very clearly in article 6.2:
      "No facility of a health care system should be used for the purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within the scope of this code".
      The Government regulations allow advertising in
      "publications specialising in baby care and distributed to women through the health care system".
      It is clear that the Government no longer support the World Health Organisation code.
      In a letter of 27 February 1995, the General Synod of the Church of England said:
      "the new regulations … run counter to the cited articles of the International code".
      When speaking on the subject on 22 March, the Parliamentary Secretary had to choose her words very carefully in order to continue the sham that the Government are still following the WHO regulations. She said that the Government now only "support the aim" of the code. We hope to hear better things than the hon. Lady's admittedly uncharacteristic bluster during the previous debate on this subject.
      The code was never meant to be a list into which people could dip and take out whatever suited them at the time. It is a full and comprehensive safeguard, which was agreed to globally. Some 11 nations use the entire code as national law and five European countries have banned advertising of breast milk substitutes—that is, France—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman read regulation 7? It states:
      "No person shall export from Great Britain to a third country an infant formula which is not—

      (a) labelled in an appropriate language…

      (b) labelled in such a way as to avoid any risk of confusion between an infant formula and a follow-on formula."

      Some years ago, a bunch of clergymen asked me to allow a lot of powdered milk to be distributed free in third-world countries. I asked them whether they wanted to kill all the children, because the mothers would probably have used contaminated water and made extra-strong formula. The regulations are quite clear and they must be appended to every export from this country.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been rather tolerant with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is a short debate of only an hour and a half and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. Long interventions of that nature do not help.
      Mr. Jones: I am not sure that the collective noun for clergymen is a "bunch"; possibly it is these days. I think that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is slightly confused; we are discussing the effect of the international code in this country and not in foreign countries.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jones: No, I will not give way again. We have a lot to get through.
      1622
      I am sure that later in the debate other hon. Members will refer to independent surveys that have shown that mothers do not want to see a ban on advertising. In fact, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary may have referred to them in the debate on 22 March. That so-called independent bit of research has been undertaken on behalf of Bounty Services Ltd., one of the major distributors of baby milk advertising to mothers in the health service. That is hardly an independent source. I have read the frankly loaded questions in its "independent" questionnaire, and I could have easily written some questions of my own that would reverse the figures that will be cited later this evening. The first question in that independent research states:
      "There has been a voluntary code in the UK for some years now for the purpose of ensuring that infant formula milk advertising does not cause a reduction in breastfeeding. I believe that this voluntary code should be retained and not replaced with new laws agree disagree neither".
      If one were to relate the truth of the matter—that there has been a voluntary code in the UK for some years now, which has not ensured that infant formula milk advertising does not cause a reduction in breast-feeding—I believe that the result would be completely different. It would be far better to ask women whether they would prefer a truly independent information package on breast-feeding. Then we would get overwhelming support from women.
      We may also hear later how women give up breast-feeding because of the pressure of going hack to work, which is simply not true. Most women stop breast-feeding in the first few weeks, long before going back to work. They stop because of the huge pressure from advertising and for social reasons. The truth is simple. Breast is by far the best. The Government are paying lip service to promoting breast-feeding while bottling out because of the demands of the baby milk manufacturers.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Ho, ho, ho.
      Mr. Jones: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is awake.
      The Government are more than willing to ignore the advice of all the relevant professional bodies, to put at risk the health of the nation and to increase the burden on the taxpayer simply to follow the now tired and discredited dogma that the free market always knows best. Where do those free market profits go? They go to Milupa in Germany; to Heinz and Wyeth, both of which are American companies, and own Farley's and SMA; and to Nutricia in Holland, which owns the good old English-sounding Cow and Gate.
      The Government have made a serious mistake with the regulations. They should change their mind and ban baby milk and infant formula advertising as soon as possible, wherever it is promoted.
      Let me leave the House with an analogy. Let us suppose that four foreign companies had developed a children's snack food, for example, which was pretty nutritious, providing most nutrients, but which caused increasing gastroenteritis and slowed brain development. Suppose that it was promoted through the education system to the tune of £6-worth of advertising per child. There would be uproar. If on top of that, once the food was tasted, the children could eat nothing else for six months, it would be a national scandal of enormous proportions. What we have in baby milk versus breast

      1623
      milk is not too dissimilar to the example that I have just described. Baby milk should be available but should not be advertised. The regulations allow that and should be changed.
      8.59 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I should make it clear from the outset that I agree with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) about breast-feeding being the best means of nurturing a baby. I do not think that any of us dispute that fact. He raised many points about the immunity of the child, its resistance to gastroenteritis, and so on. We have no problem with that at all and entirely agree with him. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he was a breast-fed baby, whereas in the Adjournment debate on 22 March the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) confessed to being a Cow and Gate baby. When it comes to assessing in mature adulthood their intelligence or the way in which they have thrived, I cannot see very much difference between them.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: That is an outrage.
      Mrs. Browning: I apologise if the hon. and learned Gentleman is outraged. I am simply forming perhaps a feminine opinion of these things. We have heard a lot of male opinion in the debate so far.
      The promotion of breast-feeding and the support for it is based on medical advice that is quite unequivocal about the advantages of breast-feeding, both for the mother and for the baby. Government policies have consistently supported breast-feeding, and that is reflected in the steps that we have taken, and are still taking, to promote it. I will cite two examples, but there are more. In 1988, the Government set up the very successful joint breast-feeding initiative, as a pilot project to assess new ways of supporting mothers who choose to breast-feed. In 1992, the national breast-feeding working group was set up and fresh guidance on breast-feeding based on its good work is soon to be issued to the NHS.
      There is, then, no doubt about the Government's commitment to breast-feeding, and we believe that the final form of the regulations that we are debating today is compatible with our commitment to breast-feeding. Too often, the criticism that I have heard of the Government is that the regulations have failed to implement the World Health Organisation code. The hon. Gentleman mentioned it today. It was also mentioned in the Adjournment debate on 22 March, and I make no apology for repeating what I said then.
      It is not the terms of the WHO code that the Government have to implement in their detailed regulations, but the terms of the European Community legislation. Those who have criticised the Government for not implementing the code also omit one important point. The code states, as does the EC directive—this is critically important, bearing in mind the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman has made—that Governments should
      1624
      implement measures in a way that is appropriate to their social and legislative framework. That is what we have done.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: That may he so, but is not this country free to improve on the regulations so that they are more in line with the WHO code of practice?
      Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady will appreciate that what the Government have done is to put into legislation something that has worked as a voluntary code of practice for many years.
      I will now deal with specific points about advertising. Long before the draft regulations were issued for consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced, in answer to a parliamentary question:
      "The Government are committed to ensuring that the existing restrictions on marketing are, at least, maintained."—[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 680.]
      Bearing in mind that commitment, the Government thought it only right at least to explore other options in the draft regulations. Therefore, we initially proposed that the controls on advertising should be quite far reaching, allowing advertisements to appear only in magazines where the intended readers would be professionals involved in maternal and baby care. It was therefore no surprise that the proposed controls generated a considerable number of responses to the consultation, both from the general public and from hon. Members.
      In the main, reaction was split between two opposing views. One view, while supporting the proposed advertising controls, held that the Government should go even further and use the directive's option to its full extent, banning all advertising of infant formula. The opposing view was that we should not use that option at all, but should stick to the minimum controls required by the directive. The latter view drew attention to the Government's policy of deregulation and the thrust of my Ministry's legislative programme: to introduce regulation only when there is no viable alternative.
      There was also a strong feeling, which I share, that such strict controls would impinge on a mother's right of access to information. Following the Adjournment debate of 22 March, my robust defence of women's right not only to choose but to make informed choices is well documented. Mothers who are not able to breast-feed, or who choose not to do so, have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them and their children. Who are we to say that a mother cannot make a judgment for herself? But she should also have enough information to enable her to make an informed decision.
      Industry takes the view—and many may agree—that advertising of infant formula is not about persuading mothers not to breast-feed but to bottle-feed their babies instead; it is about giving mothers who have already decided to bottle-feed information about the infant formulae available, so that they can make their own choices in regard to the products that they wish to select. While not denying the validity of such views, however, the Government are—as I have said—fully committed to supporting the promotion of breast-feeding. We were therefore very conscious of the fact that to adopt only the minimum in the directive would mean controls which were less restrictive than those already in place under the

      1625
      voluntary agreement with the industry. That, we decided, did not provide the support that the promotion of breast-feeding deserves.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the advantage of the directive? Would it not be far better for us simply to make up our own minds?
      Mrs. Browning: We are simply putting into law rules that we have had until now in the form of a voluntary code. We are not adding to regulation, or detracting from it; we are simply putting into law something which has worked well, and has been agreed voluntarily for many years.
      It was only after careful consideration that we concluded that the option which best served the dual purpose to which I have referred was that which has operated voluntarily and, indeed, successfully in this country since 1983. That means that advertising of infant formula will be allowed to continue—
      Mr. Martyn Jones: By what definition has the voluntary code worked? If the Minister is going by breast-feeding rates, let me point out that they have fallen slightly since the voluntary code has been in operation.
      Mrs. Browning: I believe that the statistics have remained static during the operation of the code. A telling statistic, however, is the fact that in the five years before the introduction of the code—1975 to 1980–breast-feeding increased by 15 per cent.
      Mr. Jones: Is the Minister blaming the Labour Government?
      Mrs. Browning: No, I am not. It must be recognised that there is a range of influences on a mother's choice between breast-feeding and bottle-feeding. We want to encourage breast-feeding, but it is not just a matter of whether the mother sees an advertisement or not; I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that many other factors are involved in the decision.
      Such methods are surely the best way to ensure that mothers who choose not to breast-feed make that choice in informed circumstances with professional advice readily available to them. That does not mean, as some would argue, that manufacturers will have even more freedom to advertise. In the past week or two, I have been concerned about some of the lobbying on the issue. It seems to imply that a free-for-all exists out there when in fact the reverse is the case.
      A number of restrictions apply. Local health care units will continue to make their own judgment about baby care publications—containing permitted advertisements—which they wish to accept for distribution by them, or to be available in places such as waiting rooms of antenatal clinics. They will be screened by health professionals first. The wording of the regulation also specifies that such publications must be
      "distributed only through the health care system".
      It seems only sensible that professionals in the health care system have some controls over the publications distributed through that system.
      Much has been made of the fact that, during the consultation, health professional bodies expressed support for a total ban on advertising, but the results of at least one independent survey, to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West referred, seem to suggest that some
      1626
      of their members think differently. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that a difference of view exists between the bodies which have made representations and the many thousands of individuals at the sharp end of health care.
      The survey suggests that a ban on advertising infant formula is opposed by the majority of health care professionals involved in the care of mothers and babies. Surveys have shown that a wide range of complex social, cultural and psychological factors influence a woman's choice on how to feed a baby.
      The people behind tonight's debate would have us believe that the restrained and limited amount of advertising that is permitted under the new regulations has an immense influence on mothers, and overrides all other considerations. I, for one, consider that to be nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of women, and especially of health care professionals, who will be able to monitor and vet the material.
      9.11 pm
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Last year I visited the special baby unit at Birmingham maternity hospital, which looks after premature babies. All are fed on human milk, mostly provided by the babies' mothers. Happily, there is a good record of survival, and most go home after their period in intensive care. However, one piece of information that I gleaned from my visit worried me: despite the fact that mothers had been able to express enough milk to meet their babies' needs while in intensive care, most went on to bottle-feed their babies once they had taken them home. Why should that be so, when no one doubts that all mothers want to do the best for their babies, which must mean feeding them in the way nature intended?
      As we have heard, clear scientific evidence exists that not only is breast milk best, but the use of infant formulae is damaging to both babies' and mothers' health. Compared with breast-fed babies, bottle-fed infants are twice as likely to suffer from respiratory infections, and five to 10 times as likely to suffer gastroenteritis. Good evidence also exists to suggest that breast-fed babies turn out to be more intelligent—[Interruption.]—why that produces such humour, I do not know—and that breast-feeding reduces the risk of maternal breast cancer.
      It is rare for a mother to be physiologically unable to breast-feed; yet it is sad fact that in Britain only about 60 per cent. of mothers start to breast-feed their babies and, worse still, after one week less than half of them continue, compared with Norway, for instance, where more than 90 per cent. of infants are still being breast-fed at three to four months.
      I can testify from my own experience that breast-feeding is cheap, easy and convenient. Milk is available any time, day or night, at the correct temperature, avoiding the laborious processes involved in sterilising bottles and in infant formulae preparation. It is also enjoyable for both mother and baby, and best for the restoration of the mother's figure to its pre-pregnant state. With all those advantages, everything seems to be going for breast-feeding. Is it not strange, therefore, that so few women apparently choose to breast-feed? [Interruption.] I do not know why that creates such humour on the Conservative Benches.

      1627
      The Minister alluded to a number of factors which affect a woman's choice. I agree that other factors exist apart from advertising. Of course, there is too much unsuitable promotion of the role of the female breast as a secondary sexual organ, which makes it difficult for many women and their partners to relate to the breast in its other important role. I do not deny that women's breasts can and do give considerable pleasure to both sexes, but is it not a reflection of our society's strange attitudes that the naked female breast, portrayed in a manner which objectifies women as commodities for male gratification, is regarded as an acceptable daily sight on the top and bottom shelves of our local newsagent's shop whereas a mother who discreetly breast-feeds her baby in a public place is frowned upon and made to feel that she is somehow behaving indecently?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Hon. Members should appreciate the content of the regulations. The hon. Lady speaks with great sincerity, but is she aware that if she or any of her colleagues sought to publish an article in a newspaper which did not state the benefits and superiority of breast-feeding they could be subject to a substantial fine under regulation 22? I am sure that everyone, like me, is interested in what she has to say. Does she not regard this as the most monstrous example of silly bureaucracy that the European Community has ever produced?
      Dr. Jones: I think that anyone interested in this debate will regard that issue as a red herring when it comes to considering the needs of women and babies and the need to encourage breast-feeding. In fact, the EC directive gives considerable freedom to this country as to how to regulate such matters and, of course, the Government have already made clear their support for the World Health Organisation's code, which is perhaps more stringent.
      I was referring to the attitudes which persist in society. I believe that they have a great deal to do with what amounts to considerable consumer resistance to breast-feeding, even though the Government—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order, apologise to the hon. Lady and would be most grateful if hon. Members on the fourth Bench would hold their conversations elsewhere.
      Dr. Jones: I was talking about the consumer resistance which persists despite all the expert opinion to the effect that breast-feeding is the ideal method for feeding babies. It is in this respect that advertising is of such crucial importance, as has long been recognised in the World Health Organisation code, which stipulates that there should be no advertising to the general public of formula or other products within the scope of the code. It is a much stricter code than that in the EC directive.
      The code allows dissemination of information to health care professionals but, unfortunately, in the voluntary code operated by baby milk manufacturers since the World Health Organisation code was established, it has been interpreted as allowing the advertising of infant formula milks to mothers in publications distributed through the health care system. That is just at the point when mothers are most vulnerable, and it goes completely
      1628
      against the WHO code which states that no facilities in the health care system should be used for the purposes of promoting infant formula.
      Baby milk companies spend anything between £5 million and £12 million a year on advertising—saturating hospitals and clinics with booklets, videos and leaflets, which pretend to promote breast-feeding while using subtle messages to undermine it. They always include the statement that breast-feeding is best, but the very juxtaposition of this information with the brand name implies that the particular product is just as good. A poster that I saw recently in my GP's surgery illustrates that point well. The logo of the company responsible for the poster was prominently displayed next to a picture of a mother breast-feeding her baby.
      Interestingly, the information given by the baby milk manufacturers fails to identify the actual ingredients of the formula: cows' milk which may be supplemented with beef fat, maize oil, chicken egg or large amounts of glucose syrup. The information given is selective and creates the impression that breast-feeding is difficult and that artificial feeding presents few risks. These conflicting messages undermine women's confidence in their ability to feed their own babies.
      In December 1993, it seemed that this would soon become a thing of the past when the Government, as we have heard, issued draft proposals for the implementation of the EC directive which would have banned baby pictures from tins, the advertising of infant formula to the public and the issue of free samples. The role of ensuring that all mothers received unbiased information and were given the help and advice that they needed in order to make informed choices would have been the responsibility of trained health care workers, not commercial marketing. Unfortunately, despite support for the proposals from major health bodies such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives, as well as the National Consumer Council and, in fact, some calls to strengthen the proposals to include follow-on formulae, the Government decided to put commercial interests before infant health.
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: Is it not clear from the directive that advertisers are required to indicate that breast-feeding is best?
      Dr. Jones: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not here when I was talking about the nature of the advertising and the way in which that slogan is used to undermine breast-feeding rather than to promote it.
      If Britain is to get anywhere near achieving the Government's targets on breast-feeding in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", we shall have to learn from the experience of countries such as Norway. There is no promotion of baby milk in Norway. Since 1970, when breast-feeding rates there were similar to those in the United Kingdom—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He is going now."] That shows the interest that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has in the matter.
      Since 1970, the Norwegian Government have had a strong policy of support for breast-feeding. All mothers have access to a mother-support network. That is to be compared with the attitude of our Government: in response to a question that I tabled in July asking what advice is given to employers about arrangements for encouraging mothers to continue breast-feeding after their

      1629
      return to work, the Government—both the Department of Health and the Department of Employment—unashamedly answered, "None."
      If the Government are really serious in their stated support for breast-feeding, they should properly implement the WHO code and do more to promote breast-feeding through the health care system. Spending 20p per mother—compared with at least £6 per mother spent by baby milk manufacturers to promote their £119 million business—simply is not good enough.
      9.21 pm
      Mr. David Faber: I am delighted to make what I hope will be a brief speech. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) but I did not feel that his heart was in it. Having prayed against the regulations, it is ironic that only one Labour Back Bencher is here to support her Front-Bench team. There probably would have been more debate if the regulations had been debated upstairs.
      The speeches of the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) contained a true sign of some of the thoughts of new Labour and of the Labour party. We have heard that they are anti-business, that they are anti-choice, and in condemning the fact that some European companies own companies here in Britain, we have seen that they are anti-EC investment in this country. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Selly Oak down the path that she took. I found some of what she said quite incomprehensible.
      I am delighted to declare a constituency interest as Cow and Gate Ltd. has its headquarters in Trowbridge in my constituency—[Interruption] I am proud to do so. The hon. Member for Selly Oak, in an intervention in the Adjournment debate of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) a couple of weeks ago, seemed in some way to question the fact that it was right for me to have introduced an Adjournment debate a year ago when I had a constituency interest in Cow and Gate. I should have thought that that is exactly what we are here for in the House of Commons—to represent businesses in our constituencies and to speak up for them and their interests. On this occasion, happily, the interests of my constituents and my own beliefs coincide, which of course does not always happen.
      Cow and Gate has a long tradition, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. I am happy to admit to being a Cow and Gate baby, as, indeed, did the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in his Adjournment debate. The House may remember that the Minister who responded to the Adjournment debate that I secured a year ago was my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor. We had some trouble in ascertaining that evening whether he was a Cow and Gate baby. However, I notice that The Daily Telegraph today reports that he is due to start a crash diet, and I am sure that Cow and Gate will be able to come up with a suitable recipe to help him.
      As the House knows, since 1983 the rules governing the marketing of baby milk have been enshrined in the voluntary code of practice, which will in effect be formalised this evening by the regulations. However, as the Minister has said, in some respects the EC directive being implemented does not go as far as the voluntary
      1630
      code, and baby milk advertising will continue to be allowed, but only in publications distributed through health care professionals and in trade journals.
      For the past 12 years the voluntary code has been monitored by an independent committee, most of whose members are wholly independent from the infant formula industry. The committee considers complaints against the code, which historically and traditionally have come from pressure groups, not from the general public. Few of those complaints have been upheld.
      Baby milk manufacturers have taken independent steps over the years to control their marketing—the most obvious being the banning of free and subsidised supplies to the health service some years ago.
      Both inside and outside the House, much has been made of the World Health Organisation code, which, as the Minister has confirmed, Britain fully supports. The code rightly seeks to promote breast-feeding as the ideal means of feeding babies, but we all know that we do not live in an ideal world. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Selly Oak says, many mothers simply cannot breast-feed, or do not wish to do so. Ironically, it is often the infant formula manufacturers that provide most of the information that is available about breast-feeding.
      Parents can obtain information about breast-feeding and all the other forms of baby feeding from a variety of sources—from health professionals, from the Government, from specialist organisations and, of course, from the manufacturers. All those sources have an important role to play, and the manufacturers provide a service to health professionals and to mothers through the distribution of leaflets and through sponsorship, training and advertising, as well as by other means.
      Manufacturers promote not only breast-feeding but their own products. In all, the industry hands out about 5 million leaflets a year to about 800,000 mothers. Had the draft regulations, which I opposed this time last year, been accepted, that source of information for mothers would have disappeared altogether.
      Since 1983, when the voluntary code was introduced—here I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and with other Opposition Members—the breast-feeding rate has remained static, at about 65 per cent. How, then, can it possibly be said that the maintenance of the status quo has resulted in a drop in breast-feeding rates?
      The difference between the new EC directive being implemented tonight and the WHO code of conduct is, of course, that by law the Government have to implement the directive. At a time when all Departments, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, were seeking to deregulate, we were faced with the prospect of the United Kingdom implementing a directive and going even further.
      Given my past interest, I am pleased that the Government have pulled back from that intention. As has already been said, article 8 of the EC directive, which deals with advertising, says:
      "advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications. Member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising."
      Article 8 thus allows for advertising not only in specialised baby care publications, such as Bounty books distributed within the health care system, but in baby care

      1631
      and parenting magazines, such as Mother and Baby and Practical Parenting, which are readily available on general sale in newsagents.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman has correctly said that member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising. Does he not accept that if we implemented the WHO code that is exactly what we would be doing? Does he support the code or not?
      Mr. Faber: As the Minister has said, we as a Government support the code. However, I have said precisely why I support what the Government are doing: I do not wish to see over-regulation, least of all in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      I was about to draw the attention of the House to regulation 17, which says that
      "No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula … except … in a publication specialising in baby care and distributed only through the health care system".
      That clearly prohibits the more general advertising that would have been allowed under article 8, which other hon. Members—some of whom may feel that the regulations are too restrictive—and manufacturers would oppose.
      Finally, a great deal has been made of the organisations that are opposed to advertising baby milk and of the representations that they have made to my hon. Friend the Minister. I disagree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, who questions the validity of an independent survey carried out for Bounty. He is right that Bounty may not be independent, but the company which carried out the survey—Market Trends—is independent. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but is he saying that when MORI carries out a poll for the Labour party he would question whether MORI was an independent polling organisation because the Labour party had an interest in the result of that poll? He could not possibly say that.
      The independent survey was quite categoric, and showed that 93 per cent. of bottle-feeding mothers opposed a ban on advertising, as did 74 per cent. of breast-feeding mothers, 68 per cent. of midwives and 64 per cent. of health visitors. As has been pointed out, the latter two groups are made up of professionals who would vet whether such material was suitable for distribution. Those experienced professionals, in my opinion, should be listened to.
      It has been alleged that the industry spends some £12 million a year on promotional materials, but I do not believe that. I know what Cow and Gate's market share is, and how much it has spent to support that market share. Either it is infinitely more competitive than its competitors, or the true figure is much lower—perhaps less than half that figure. Of that expenditure, more than 40 per cent. goes on educational material.
      The debate has been about freedom of choice and the right of a mother—who, whatever others may think, knows best—to choose what to do for her baby. The Government rightly acknowledge that breast is best, and we will do everything possible to promote that. Bottle-feeding is not dangerous—it is a matter of the degree of goodness for the baby. While cigarettes can still be freely advertised it would be ludicrous to ban the limited advertising of a legal and healthy product such as baby milk.
      1632
      It would be insulting to mothers and to their intelligence to say that they cannot make a rational decision. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Front Benchers are paying attention.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I am not intervening just to prove that I am paying attention; I should like to make two points. First, my speech was not in any way diffident—this is an important issue, and I am very sincere about what I am saying—and, secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that baby milk is not harmful. Does he not consider a 10-times higher risk of gastroenteritis to be harmful?
      Mr. Faber: Anyone would prefer babies not to have gastroenteritis, but I go back to what I said a few minutes ago. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, many mothers are physically unable to breast-feed, and many do not do so for other reasons. It would be quite wrong to deprive them of the right to choose and the information that is available.
      Since her well-deserved promotion, my hon. Friend the Minister has been an eloquent proponent of minimum interference mixed with plenty of good common sense. That is what we have in the regulations this evening, and I commend her on laying them before the House.
      9.32 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has represented his constituency interest well tonight. One could almost hear echoes of his distinguished grandfather as he told us that babies, apparently, have never had it so good.
      I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate on 22 March to which the Minister replied. During that debate, I told the House that I was a Cow and Gate baby. Incidentally, I was born on the same day as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who ate for both of us. The Minister told us during that debate that she was a mother-in-law. During her percussive reply to the debate—in which she showed a degree of petulance which, I suspect, she would not display in her relations with her offspring and offspring-in-law—she seemed to claim that those of us who criticised the Government for the regulations were somehow treating women as unintelligent creatures who were not able to make their own choice.
      I too have a mother-in-law. Like the Minister, she is extremely charming, highly intelligent and very experienced and I have nothing but praise for her, even after more than a quarter of a century. I am afraid that, as an intelligent and wise woman, she would not agree for one moment with the hon. Lady.
      As the hon. Member for Westbury said, in this country we have a breast-feeding rate of about 65 per cent. That is a great deal less than in some other countries, which have been much more successful in persuading mothers to breast-feed. I hope that the Minister will agree that the success of those countries is to be commended and that one should try to learn from it and to find out why, for example, there is a much higher breast-feeding rate in Norway. Is it because women in Norway are better at exercising choice? I doubt it. It is far more likely to be because the Norwegian Government have taken much more seriously the World Health Organisation's code and have enacted it.

      1633
      During this debate, an unseemly war of words broke out on the fourth row back below the Gangway on the Government side between the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who were separated only by a nervous-looking referee. For this to be an argument about European regulations begs the question as to what level of action the Government should take.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) is right—the Government should be doing more to enable women to make that informed choice, which I, like the Minister, believe they can make. Unlike the Minister, however, I suspect that they are being influenced in the opposite direction.
      Mrs. Browning: I do not want to hold up the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he will recall that in his Adjournment debate I asked him whether he felt that he knew better than the mothers of this country—it is on the record—and he replied, "I do."
      Mr. Carlile: It is clear from the evidence that many mothers in this country who might be persuaded to breast-feed are being persuaded to bottle-feed. That is the issue. The answer that I gave to that question is reflected in the answers that are given by people who are much more expert than me.
      I do not want to take up much time, as I had my opportunity to speak on the issue on 22 March and I will certainly not repeat what I said then, but may I remind the Minister that there have been extremely telling articles in a number of distinguished medical journals, which demonstrated through proper scientific protocols that breast-feeding gives remarkably important protection to babies? They are journals such as The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, the International Journal of Epidemiology, the "Journal of Paediatrics", the "American Journal of Epidemiology", the "New Zealand Medical Journal", the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and—probably the most distinguished medical journal of all—The New England Journal of Medicine.
      The article in The New England Journal of Medicine was published in 1988 and written by Mayer and others. It demonstrated that the risk of the onset of diabetes is significantly reduced by breast-feeding. Diabetes is just one of the conditions to which the journals refer—others are breast cancer, respiratory infections and sudden infant death syndrome. Surely the Government should have done more than the minimum to reduce the incidence of that sort of damage and of those conditions.
      Will the Minister answer one question that she did not answer in the Adjournment debate? Having drafted regulations that were considerably tougher than those that have been introduced, why did the Government change and dilute them? Although it would be cynical, the obvious answer—I am content to set it aside if she can give us a better answer—is that the Government were giving way to a large and significant lobby from the food industry.
      The minimal regulations that have been introduced have taken matters not a jot further. The Minister has told us frankly that the regulations that were introduced simply put the voluntary scheme into statutory form. Is she proud of taking a step that is barely a step? Surely she should have gone further and taken some steps at least to the extent of the original draft regulations, which still fall
      1634
      short of the World Health Organisation code. That might have ensured better health for more babies through better health education for more young mothers.
      9.39 pm
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I believe that breast-feeding is best, but, like other hon. Members, I know that it is not always possible for mothers to breast-feed in what is a less than perfect world. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), said in her sensible and down-to-earth speech. I oppose the motion because it would place an unreasonable restriction on the advertising of infant and follow-on formulae. It would restrict the freedom of choice to which every mother is entitled.
      I declare that I have a constituency interest inasmuch as Milupa Ltd. is located in my constituency, but I have no personal or financial interest in that firm. It is simply an important local employer in Uxbridge.
      We heard this evening that the proportion of mothers who breast-feed to mothers who bottle-feed has hardly changed in the past 10 to 15 years, despite changes in marketing practice. No Government or commercial evidence exists to suggest that advertising has a significant influence on a mother's choice of feeding method. I know that a number of factors affect a mother's choice, as I have been married for 37 years and have a family of my own; I have therefore been able to observe some of those matters at first hand.
      First, it is matter of personal preference. Many women prefer to feed their babies with infant formula rather than breast-feed them. Family and social pressures may cause a woman to make that decision. The advice that many women receive from health professionals may also lead to that decision.
      The most recent Government survey gave the reasons why mothers choose not to breast-feed. First, 39 per cent. of all mothers and 47 per cent. of all first-time mothers said that they chose to use infant formula—bottle-feed—because it allowed other people to feed the baby. Secondly, there is the well-known and obviously acceptable reason that a mother has insufficient natural milk to feed her baby. Many mothers suffer physical discomfort, and some babies reject breast-feeding. Another reason is that of life style. We live in a society where the vast majority of mothers go out to work and therefore choose, by their own free will, to bottle-feed instead of breast-feed their babies.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shersby: No. The hon. Lady has had quite long enough tonight. I am under great pressure from my colleagues to be brief.
      Some 39 per cent. of all mothers and 47 per cent. of first-time mothers quoted previous experience as a factor.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) referred to the research by Market Trends Ltd. carried out in 1994. That research is persuasive because it shows that mothers want a ban on neither infant formula nor advertising, and that view is shared by a wide variety of health professionals. That survey found that 60 per cent. of health professionals were opposed to a ban. That figure included 68 per cent. of midwives and 64 per cent. Of

      1635
      health visitors. Those professionals are constantly concerned with the care of mothers and babies, and their views must be taken seriously.
      I submit that there is a need for advertising. It is an essential communications channel for all those involved in the food chain, such as manufacturers, retailers, distributors, health professionals and consumers. Advertising provides information about products, such as details of changes to packaging, formulations and product names. At least 100 changes are made to infant formula every year.
      Mothers need to be confident that the products that they are buying are safe and of a high standard. Advertising identifies the brands to parents so that they can distinguish easily between different products. It is well known that branding provides a guarantee of safety and nutritional quality backed by a reputable company name. Those are important factors that any mother—or father, for that matter—would wish to take into account in taking what is essentially a personal decision.
      Advertising also provides the mother with protection against the use of inappropriate products. It ensures healthy competition between manufacturers, which in turn ensures that product innovation has progressed considerably, which increases product choice.
      Those are the principal reasons why I oppose the motion. There is a terrible tendency among some Members of the House to tell mothers what is best for them, a tendency to dictate what people should eat and drink, a tendency to quote from one world organisation or another. The fact is that the British do not like it. The British want a sensible regime of the type described so wisely by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in her admirable speech. I therefore strongly oppose the motion, and I shall vote against it in the Lobby.
      9.46 pm
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: This is a terribly serious issue—in many instances, literally a life or death issue. It is a simple issue. It cannot be right to allow the advertising of infant formula and follow-on feeds in the national health service. Common sense tells me that that cannot be right.
      Two things are evident. First, mother's milk is beneficial to babies. It follows that it is detrimental to babies not to have mother's milk. That is as true of human beings as it is of any other species. Anyone who has reared animals knows the effect of not allowing the young to have their mother's milk.
      Secondly, it is evident that advertising influences behaviour. We have heard two speakers from the Conservative Benches who have had to admit that in their constituencies are commercial interests whose interests they have been, to some degree, representing. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned Milupa. It is worth mentioning that Milupa sponsored a hearing room in Hillingdon hospital—a room that is used by expectant mothers—and, following the exhibition of the word "Milupa" above the entrance to the hall, sales of Milupa milk increased there by 560 per cent. Obviously, advertising has that effect.
      1636
      Bearing those two facts in mind, it is not surprising that people who know and understand the importance of mother's milk to children's health want to prohibit advertising of infant formula feed in the national health service. We have heard that 48 agencies, including the United Nations Children's Fund, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, wished the regulations to have that effect.
      It is not surprising that that is the case, and it is not surprising that the baby food industry wants promotion and advertising to continue. Of course it does; it is in its interest.
      To whom should we listen—the baby food industry or the health professionals? The answer is self-evident. My next question is rather sad: to whom is the Government more likely to listen—the health professionals or the food industry? I am afraid that the answer to that is self-evident. That is why it has become self-evident to right-thinking people that it is time for the Government to fall—[Laughter.] It is because of just that sort of thing. Conservative Members find that amusing, but we should consider the public's perception of the Government's line on the subject. I think that the Government's line will be regarded with repugnance, but without surprise, by the British public.
      I wish to say something on the basis of personal experience. My children were not breast-fed, for reasons that I have discussed with my wife. She experienced some initial difficulty and in hospital she was discouraged from continuing to breast-feed after her first attempt. She admits that she was influenced by the promotional activities of the powdered milk manufacturers.
      I have three children. When he was younger, the eldest suffered badly from migraine. The other two children both suffer from asthma. It is well known that those conditions are likely to be exacerbated if the baby was not breast-fed and did not have the advantage of such food. I do not think that many people would question that. It is highly likely that my children would have had better health, and my two younger children would have better health now, had it not been for the influence of the baby food manufacturers on my wife's decision. My wife recognises that.
      My wife is a highly intelligent woman, but she concedes that at the time she was young, inexperienced and vulnerable in her immediate post-natal condition, and was influenced by the promotional activity. How much greater will be the influence on other mothers? It is evident that thousands of mothers will be influenced in that way. It cannot be right to allow that influence to be brought to bear on mothers in those circumstances when the crucial choice as to whether they will breast-feed is made.
      The line peddled by the Parliamentary Secretary is unworthy of her. I shall support the revocation of the regulations, and so should she.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I declare an interest in that my wife works at the centre for international child health, the research arm of Great Ormond Street hospital and a worldwide centre of excellence in the care of children.

      1637
      The unanimous view of specialists at the centre for international child health is that the unnecessary use of formula feed is expensive, damaging to children and harmful to mothers. That view is based on experience from all over the world, including many countries where the activities of formula feed salespeople are harmful.
      The Government have put a number of health professionals in an extraordinarily difficult position because they have set targets or suggested goals for the promotion of the best health care while at the same time frustrating the professionals in a variety of different ways.
      It is important for me briefly to set out some of those frustrations. If the Government are determined to improve the promotion of breast-feeding, why are they so content with such poor performance relative to most countries in Europe? We know that they are in favour of it, because they state in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation":
      "the Government proposes to set up a national working group to help identify and take forward action to increase the proportion of infants breastfed both at birth and at six weeks."
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say what that group has achieved. I thought that she said in her opening remarks that, if we hang about for a few more weeks, as a result of its hard work there will be a new code. That seems a fairly minor achievement after three years of unremitting toil.
      I did not understand why, if Ministers are confident that their promotion of breast-feeding is as effective as commercial promotion, in booklets and videos distributed throughout the health system—which is bound to be the most effective way of reaching the target audience—one of my hon. Friends said that there was some merit in confining advertising to specialist health journals. It seems improbable that there would be very much response to advertising in a motor cycling magazine, for example.
      Specialists all over the world agree that breast-feeding is better for babies, better for mothers, much less expensive than bottle milk and proprietary feeds and, therefore, better for the all-round prosperity of low-income families; yet here in the United Kingdom, we seem determined to sustain the promotional efforts of companies whose commercial advantage must be to depress as far as possible the levels of breast-feeding. That makes very little sense.
      The Government's problem will become more acute as they move into health promotion rather than simply curative medicine. Governments are mostly very poor at advertising effectively; it is particularly difficult for a Conservative Government, because Conservative Governments are always concerned lest the weight of taxpayers' money behind a Government promotional scheme should be seen as unfair competition to private sector advertising campaigns. Consequently, Governments feel paralysed and do not promote their cause with anything like the vigour of the people promoting the alternative cause.
      If the Government are serious about promoting breast-feeding, they have to improve their performance a great deal more than they have done so far, and the almost unanimous voice of international specialists should be more influential. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will understand the considerable frustration of the professionals who, on the one hand, are encouraged to promote the best of health and, on the other, are faced with an almost impossible position.
      9.58 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Views have been expressed that breast-feeding is a good idea, and that the absence of it causes migraine—which surprises those who get migraines for other reasons. Others have expressed the view strongly that it is ridiculous to interfere with the freedom of mothers and commercial companies.
      I hope that, before hon. Members vote on the motion, they will read the regulations, particularly regulations 21 and 22. Hon. Members must first appreciate that we are not voting on some magic idea of whether breast-feeding is a good or a bad idea. All we are doing is implementing a European regulation which has already been passed. People who speak those rather ridiculous, sentimental words and say that it is of great moment should admit to the world that we are merely implementing legislation that Europe has applied already.
      There is also the question of the Euro-thought police. In this country, we accept that people should be able to argue for or against something. They may argue with great sincerity that breast-feeding is a great idea or that it is not such a good thing. Regulation 21 says:
      "No person"—
      not me or any other hon. Member or any member of the public—
      "shall produce or publish any informational and educational … material"
      that is aimed at mothers—mothers read most relevant information—which does not promote
      "the benefits and superiority of breast-feeding".
      If academics, doctors or social workers think that that may be wrong, not only are they not allowed to publish their views but they could be fined under regulation 22.
      Hon. Members who intend to vote for the regulations because they think that they are good and that it is exciting to do so should appreciate that they are voting in favour of interfering with people's liberty to discuss issues and to publish their views. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that that is rubbish, and that the regulations are aimed at commercial companies.
      There are restrictions on the donations that commercial companies can make. They can make donations only with the written authority of the Secretary of State or in accordance with guidelines that she has drawn up. Commercial companies—the Cow and Gates of this world—are not allowed to make donations to anyone unless they make them subject to the rules drawn up by the Secretary of State under the European directive.
      Finally, what the blazes is the point of having silly rules which were drawn up by a European directive? They restrict our freedoms. The House may take a wholly different view; hon. Members may think that these sorts of issues should be discussed and written about in newspapers and magazines for mothers with infants, and that we should examine all aspects of the issue. Our freedom of speech is being restricted and undermined. That is not funny. It is making nonsense of our democracy, nonsense of the House of Commons and nonsense of our debate.
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) may yawn, but it is not funny. We are witnessing the death of democracy, and that matters. After the hon. Member has had a yawn, I ask him to read the document. If he does not, I hope that other hon. Members will.
      10.2 pm
      Sir Giles Shaw: I shall make some brief observations on the subject. First, I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in speaking in the debate. I understand that it would be a desperate situation if we all had to feed at the Euro-breast; that is something that we must avoid.
      There is considerable confusion as to whether, by taking the voluntary system into a statutory form, there is any significant difference in the Government's policy on promoting infant formula products. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that there will be no change from the proposals that were published originally, which had the blessing of the World Health Organisation and which tried to prevent persuasion being applied to those who are perhaps less able to understand and accept the arguments, I shall be satisfied. However, I believe that there have been changes, and representations have been made to me expressing great anxiety that what is now proposed runs counter to the original proposals, and the reasons for that have not been made clear.
      10.3 pm
      Mrs. Browning: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my remarks on the motion will be very brief. I am grateful to the Opposition for their generosity. Despite my reassurances to the contrary, a feeling has developed during tonight's debate that somehow the Government are anti-breast-feeding. I agree with everything that has been said about the benefits of breast-feeding. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned those benefits and I assure him that I do not disagree for one minute with what he said. [Interruption.] Yes, he was bottle-fed.
      I understand the great strength of feeling that this issue generates, but let me reassure the House that the Government remain committed to the promotion and the protection of breast-feeding as the best means of nurturing a baby. I remain convinced that mothers have the intelligence to decide for themselves what is best for their baby. If they cannot breast-feed or there comes a time when the baby moves from breast-feeding to bottle-feeding, it is important that mothers have informed choices. It is quite appropriate that the information should be given to them by the health care professionals to whom the information is disseminated.
      I repeat the central point, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will note this: the controls on advertising that are laid down in the regulations are just the same as those that we have had for the past 12 years under our voluntary code. There has been no relaxation in the measures. The essential change is that, with the regulations, there will be statutory backing for those controls, and without them there will not. Those who are concerned about breast-feeding should welcome that change.
      I commend the regulations to the House.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 258.

      Divisoin No.128]

      [10.05 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Feid, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Fisher, Mark

      Ainger, Nick

      Flynn, Paul

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Alton, David

      Fraser, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Gapes, Mike

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Garret, John

      Ashton, Joe

      George, Bruce

      Austin-Walker, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barron, Kevin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Battle, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bayley, Hugh

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beggs, Roy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bell, Stuart

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benton, Joe

      Gunnell, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hain, Peter

      Berry, Roger

      Hall, Mike

      Betts, Clive

      Hanson, David

      Blunkett, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bradley, Keith

      Harvey, Nick

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Heppell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hoey, Kate

      Canavan, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Chidgey, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Church, Judith

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hutton, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Clelland, David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jamieson, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Corston, Jean

      Jowell, Tessa

      Cousins, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Keen, Alan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Darling, Alistair

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davidson, Ian

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Litherland, Robert

      Denham, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dewar, Donald

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dixon, Don

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dobson, Frank

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dowd, Jim

      McCartney, Ian

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Macdonald, Calum

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      Maclennan, Robert

      Etherington, Bill

      McMaster, Gordon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fatchett, Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      1641

      McWilliam, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Madden, Max

      Rogers, Allan

      Maddock, Diana

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mahon, Alice

      Rooney, Terry

      Marek, Dr John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Short, Clare

      Meacher, Michael

      Simpson, Alan

      Meale, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Milbum, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Snape, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Soley,Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Murphy, Paul

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Touhig, Don

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dennis

      Olner, Bill

      Tyler, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Parry, Robert

      Walley, Joan

      Pearson, Ian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watson, Mike

      Pike, Peter L

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wilson, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Winnick, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wise, Audrey

      Purchase, Ken

      Worthington, Tony

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wray, Jimmy

      Radice, Giles

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Randall, Stuart

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redmond, Martin

      Mrs. Barbara Roche and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Peter Mandelson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowis, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Ancram, Michael

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Ct'thorpes)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Atkins, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Butler, Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bates, Michael

      Cash, William

      Batiste, Spencer

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Booth, Hartley

      Coe, Sebastian

      Boswell, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      1642

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Cran, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lait Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan-Smith, lain

      Lang, Rt Hon lan

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir 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 Sir peter (Farehgm)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Luff, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maritland, Lady Olga

      Forman, Nigel

      Malone, Gerald

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Forth, Eric

      Mans, Keith

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mates, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Gale, Roger

      Mills, lain

      Gallie, Phil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner Sir George

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Garnier, Edward

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Montgomery, Sr Fergus

      Gorst, Sir John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hague, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Norris, Steve

      Hannam, Sir John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hendry, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Horam, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Richards, Rod

      Howell, Sir Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      1643

      Robertson, Raymond S. (Aberdeen South)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Thomason, Roy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Thumham, Peter

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trend, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shersby, Michael

      Twinn, Drlan

      Sims, Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walden, George

      Soames, Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Watts, John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whitney, Ray

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sproat, lain

      Wilkinson, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Willetts, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stephen, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stem, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Streeter, Gary

      Sumberg, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Sykes, John

      Mr. Simon Burns.

      Question accordingly negatived.

Railways (South Yorkshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.20 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the future funding of railways in South Yorkshire. The debate is opportune and timely. I hope that the House will allow me to speak for the bulk of the Adjournment debate and then allow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) to say a few words at the end—of course, with the Minister's permission.
The issue of the funding of railway services supported by passenger transport authorities after the metropolitan railway grant expires in 1996 is a pressing one. The passenger transport authorities are in something of a vacuum when considering their budgets for 1996–97 and, of course, thereafter. The issue is not confined to South Yorkshire but affects all passenger transport executives and passenger transport authorities across the country, but, as my constituency is in South Yorkshire, I shall confine my remarks to that area.
The financial support for local railways dates back to the Transport Act 1968. Under section 20, formal, legal agreements were to be made between British Rail and the passenger transport executives. Those agreements supported local services which, as a consequence, have expanded since 1968. The total number of passengers carried on PTE-supported services is now double that carried by the former InterCity business unit of British Rail and is about three quarters of the number carried on the former Regional Railways, of which, of course, PTEs were a part.
Therefore, in the country as a whole, and in South Yorkshire in particular, these supported services are extremely important. I shall emphasise that by highlighting some of the statistics for South Yorkshire.
It is estimated that the number of passenger journeys is about 6.2 million, which means 115,000 supported trains each year. The supported route mileage is 102.5; 35 stations are supported on the lines; and there are 54 million supported passenger miles and 56 supported staff. It is easy to see that the 6.2 million passenger journeys are extremely important to South Yorkshire.
Those journeys cover routes such as Sheffield to Doncaster, Sheffield to Kiveton Park, Sheffield to Morthen, Sheffield to Barnsley—my constituency, of course—Barnsley to Penistone, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, Barnsley to Darton, the routes from Doncaster to Kirk Sandall and Thorne going out to Scunthorpe, and from Doncaster to South Elmsall.
Those are obviously local routes in South Yorkshire, which involve Sheffield, Barnsley and Doncaster, and they are important for a number of reasons. Doncaster, Sheffield and Barnsley, in the South Yorkshire passenger transport area, are now the major centres of employment. Rail services at the appropriate times are essential to those areas.
Over the past 15 years—this has been well documented in other debates and I shall not rehearse the arguments—tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the South Yorkshire area. In Sheffield, in the early 1980s, thousands

1645
of jobs were lost in the steel industry. In Barnsley and Doncaster over the past few years, jobs have been lost in the coal industry.
Therefore, the rail routes are in areas of low economic activity. If those rail routes were not supported by Government grant, they would not be viable in the private sector; they would be run down or, at worst, removed entirely. Therefore, those people living in those areas would not have the benefit of available rail travel. Barnsley and Doncaster are major towns and Sheffield, of course, is a city. There is a great concern that some routes are likely to be lost in that area. Some of those smaller towns that I mentioned are not easily accessible via road, especially in winter time, and particularly Penistone, which is an outlying village in a high area relying on rail travel.
The funding arrangements continued under section 20, which was known as the bolt-on initiative, until the Railways Act 1993, when the privatisation of the railways brought a new system and new structures for railways in this country and, of course, a different funding mechanism. It was recognised immediately that the charges paid by the PTEs in support of local services would increase. In fact, they have not only increased, they have gone through the roof. The charges have increased quite dramatically.
As a consequence, the Government were obliged to introduce a support mechanism, which became known as the metropolitan railways grant. That was a one-off grant for two years in 1994-95 and 1995–96, and was designed to cover the increased charges caused by the loss of cross-subsidy and the transparency which was imposed on railway costs. The idea that charges would be levied for the usage of railways and to increase transparency—as the then Minister put it—to ensure that PTEs could see exactly what they were paying for was debated at length throughout the passage of the Railways Act.
The increases, which were listed by the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) in a debate on 19 May 1994, were to reflect the full cost of privatisation, to ensure that there was transparency of Railtrack access charges, to reflect the rolling stock lease charges and to ensure that those charges covered the new investment, and to ensure a rate of return for Railtrack and for the rolling stock companies, which have become known as Roscos.
There was one interesting point in that debate, when the right hon. Member for Kettering said:
"The expenditure covered by this grant"—
the metropolitan railways grant—
"will fall outside the authorities' budget requirements,"
the local authorities of Sheffield, Doncaster and Barnsley,
"so it will not create any problems with regard to capping."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 19 May 1994; c. 5.]
I mention that because, only today, we have heard that two of the authorities involved in the debate—Sheffield and Barnsley—are subject to the capping arrangements announced by the Secretary of State today in a written answer.
I mentioned increased charges, and I shall run through a couple of them.
The increases in expenditure listed by South Yorkshire passenger transport executive are dramatic. Train maintenance, for example, has increased from £2.7 million to £4 million, and infrastructure charges from £1.8
1646
million to £9.5 million, so there have been massive increases in the charges levied against the passenger transport executives. At the bottom of the balance sheet for the 1994–95 budget, a level of funding of about £6.6 million has now increased to about £17.2 million. Charges have increased by about 156 per cent.
That increase has been funded by the metropolitan railway grant. But what will happen for the 1996–97 financial year, when the grant will have expired? I understand that additional funding will probably be available—although the Minister has given no commitment, and I hope that he will be able to enlighten us this evening—but that it will be paid to individual local authorities through the revenue support grant.
The money will be hidden in the methodology of the standard spending assessments—a methodology that I have criticised since 1990, when it was first introduced. Only last year, after the system had been debated in the Chamber over three or four years, the arrangements covering my constituency of Barnsley were altered so that although my local authority's standard spending assessment has been increased, the capping level means that it can spend only 0.1 per cent. above its SSA, compared with an average for metropolitan authorities of 5 per cent. above SSA. The Minister will therefore immediately appreciate the difficulties that local authorities could find in trying to fund passenger transport executives and rail services through the revenue support grant.
As I have said, we are still waiting for confirmation of what funding there will be, what form it will take and what method will be used. There is a sense of urgency now, in that PTEs have to decide by the end of May whether to support local services, because they must give 12 months' notice if they intend to withdraw from funding any of them.
An added complication is the fact that, according to the franchising director, franchises are likely to extend for seven years. How can PTEs decide whether to support local rail services without knowing how the grant funding formula will operate, or what level of funding will be available? It is impossible for them to decide which course of action to choose.
Over the next few weeks, South Yorkshire passenger transport executive must decide whether to support the same services as before or to give the 12 months' notice of withdrawal from the scheme. In South Yorkshire, we now face the ludicrous prospect of losing rail services on uneconomic routes—perhaps running fewer trains, or even losing altogether whole routes that are essential for the areas concerned.
It is vital that the Minister give South Yorkshire passenger transport executive some assurances, either tonight or in the next week or so, about the future funding formula. Bearing in mind the Government's attitude to authorities such as Sheffield and Barnsley, which were mentioned today in connection with capping arrangements, I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to our views on funding through the RSG.
Finally, I shall quickly raise two other related issues—timetabling and the fixing of fares. The PTEs want to retain influence over timetabling. They are paying for the routes, and they want to ensure that services run at times appropriate to the locality. Government assurances, dating

1647
back to 1993, have been given on that subject, but I understand that Strathclyde is now having difficulties involving timetabling.
As for the fixing of fares, on through routes there is likely to be cherry-picking by the larger services, which will be able to undercut the fares set by the PTEs.
10.34 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I shall confine my remarks to the situation in my constituency. First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for initiating the debate, and for his generosity in allowing me a few minutes to emphasise the need to ensure the continuity of adequate funding to keep the rail services in Barnsley, West and Penistone.
My constituency is next to that of my hon. Friend, but it covers an extensive geographical area from the west of Barnsley town up to the Pennines. The railway loops my constituency, and connects Barnsley with Sheffield on the one hand and with Huddersfield on the other. The Sheffield, Penistone and Huddersfield line is particularly famed because of the beautiful countryside through which it runs, and for the magnificent viaducts at Penistone and at Denby Dale, the latter of which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
There are two issues which are enormously important to the development of Barnsley and South Yorkshire. The first is the rail connection between the rural and urban parts of the region, which is essential for commuters. My constituency has 20-odd villages in a rural area, and that is the local dimension to the major issue. The transport system is essential for the link-up with the national transport system, and it is also enormously important for the economic regeneration of the former mining areas. Many former miners travel to work in Sheffield and Barnsley, and some travel even further afield.
The second issue is that rural services are most important for the development of the tourist trade in Barnsley. My constituency is rich in early industrial sites, which have been made accessible by the heritage trail. The railway links the old industrial villages such as Elsecar on the east side of my constituency with Silkstone in the mid-part of my constituency. Both villages have made important social and economic contributions to the United Kingdom's early industrialisation.
Those two points were emphasised by the local chamber of commerce when it gave evidence in a submission to the Transport Select Committee, which took evidence on "The Future of the Railways in Light of the Government's White Paper proposals" in 1993.
The South Yorkshire transport executive has opened some of the older stations on the route in my constituency—for example, at Silkstone and Dodworth. These allow people who are commuting from the villages and tourists travelling in the area to have access to the villages, because there is a link with the bus service.
What I have said to the Minister emphasises the importance of the railway services to my constituency. As my hon. Friend has said, the current financial situation relates to the revenue support grant and to the metropolitan railway grant. These last only until 1996, but
1648
it has been estimated that the costs after privatisation will rise from £6.6 million to £17.1 million. That is an enormous increase, and we must bear in mind the fact that there will be no mechanism after April 1996 to continue grants.
I hope that, when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, he will assure us that adequate finance will continue after April 1996, so that rail services in my constituency can be maintained by the passenger transport executive.
10.38 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to provide some of the information which the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) have requested about the future funding of railway passenger services in South Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central acknowledged that the whole issue of future funding touches not just on South Yorkshire, but on all other PTEs in England and Scotland which support railway passenger services in their areas.
The PTAs are responsible for drawing up local public transport policies for the metropolitan areas outside London—six in England, and Strathclyde in Scotland. The membership is drawn from the constituent metropolitan district councils, and it is important that the body that sets the broad policy is made up of elected representatives of those constituent authorities to ensure local accountability for decisions taken, and to take into account the local needs that both hon. Members explained to the House.
The statutory powers for funding railway passenger services are set out in section 20 of the Transport Act 1968, which enables the PTEs to enter into agreements with British Rail to support railway passenger services. The PTEs contract individually with BR for the provision of the rail services in their areas. Central Government support to PTEs in respect of the net cost of the services has been channelled through the revenue support grant to the metropolitan district councils.
Before railway restructuring, PTE funding was provided solely through revenue support grant, and PTEs were charged by BR generally on a marginal cost basis for those services. Restructuring of the railways saw the introduction of a revised charging regime, involving the recovery of the full costs of access charges and rolling stock leasing charges. The full costs are much greater than the net costs that were borne previously. Without the full details of the prospective extra costs, it was not possible to feed an appropriate level of grant into the RSG process.
Consequently, to meet the extra costs facing PTEs arising from the change from marginal costs to full cost recovery, the Government introduced metropolitan railway grant as a transitional measure in 1994–95, to meet the funding gap between the bolt-on and the extra costs of the revised charging regime. I use the term "transitional" advisedly, because the Government have always seen MRG as a temporary measure.
The calculation of MRG takes as the starting point the services contracted for PTEs for 1993–94 and represents the difference between the costs of providing those services under the old marginal-cost basis and new full-cost basis. It is paid by my Department directly to English PTAs. Subject to Parliament, we also propose to pay MRG in 1995–96.

1649
Consultation will shortly be under way on the proposed formula for MRG for 1995–96. We are aiming to send out the consultation document before Easter.
Given the temporary nature of MRG, we have been looking closely at the long-term funding for PTE rail services from 1996–97 onwards. To preserve the element of local flexibility inherent in the existing system, we are minded that funding should revert to channelling all support for PTE rail services through an enhanced RSG bolt-on.
The process of bedding down the new charging regime will be nearly completed this year, when finalised access costs for the period until 2001 will emerge from the regulator's review, and when rolling stock leasing charges are made known. That should enable the Government to enhance effectively the support for PTE rail passenger services through RSG, to reflect the net increase in the level of support required to maintain existing services in future years.
I am also aware of the concerns of the metropolitan district councils in respect of capping. We will seek, through the Department of the Environment, to take steps to ensure that the new arrangements for funding PTE rail services do not increase the likelihood of metropolitan districts being capped.
Our general approach on future funding is the subject of consultation with all the PTEs, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. We have sought the views of the PTEs on that approach, and look forward to seeing a constructive contribution on the way forward from the PTEs and the AMA.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was concerned that the funding might be lost in the myriad other elements of revenue support grant. We also consider the maintenance of some transparency in the funding mechanism important, and intend that it should be covered as follows. The new bolt-on total will be published in the local government finance report, as at present, and will make the new totals clear to all passenger transport authorities and metropolitan district councils.
The underlying formula will continue to be discussed through the standard spending assessment sub-group, will be determined by Ministers, and will be made freely available to the local authority associations, PTAs and individual metropolitan district councils. The allocation of each metropolitan bolt-on to the constituent district councils will continue to be on the basis of total resident population. We shall be ready and willing to write to individual district councils to confirm their allocation of the bolt-on. We shall also point out that the bolt-on results in a corresponding increase in standard spending assessment, and therefore a corresponding increase in RSG for that authority.
In respect of how the additional funding will work through the system, the overall control total for PTE-supported railway passenger services will be set by my Department, subject to the 1995 public expenditure
1650
survey determinations and the views of the Department of the Environment and, in the case of Strathclyde, the Scottish Office.
We see the overall control total for 1996–97 as reflecting such matters as the projected costs in 1996–97 of rolling stock leasing charges, train operating costs and track access charges. It will fall to PTEs to pay for the cost of any additional services that they may decide to introduce over and above those covered by 1995–96 support. The intention is to ensure that the support available in 1996–97 will be equivalent to the support available in 1995–96.
The provisional distribution formula—based largely on actuals—is intended to ensure, so far as is possible, that PTEs receive broadly the same funding to reflect the net increase in the support required to maintain existing services in future years. That current formula can be revised, if appropriate, to take account of the views of South Yorkshire PTA and PTE, and those of the other PTEs, PTAs and the AMA.
In the franchising process, the franchising director is required to give notice to the PTE of his intention to include, in the franchise agreement, provisions relating to the operation of any stations and light maintenance depots within the passenger transport area, and of his intention to issue an invitation to tender.
The PTE may respond to that notice within 60 days by submitting a statement which will, inter alia, specify the services in that area; the minimum level of quality of services so specified; and requirements with respect to the fares to be charged.
When such a statement has been submitted by the PTE, the franchise director will ensure that those services, and any minimum levels of quality or requirements with respect to fares, are included in the specification of the services in respect of which the invitation to tender is issued. Before entering into a franchise agreement, a PTE must obtain its PTA's approval of the proposed franchise agreement. The franchising director will specify any other services required for that franchise, and provide any payments under the franchise agreement in respect of such services.
I hope that what I have said makes the position clear in terms of the background, our intentions as regards future funding, and franchising. We want the PTEs to continue their valuable work in supporting railway passenger services in their areas, and to continue to play a key role in the new railway era. I hope that what I have said goes some way towards ensuring that they do, and that the consultations that are now under way, both about the future enhanced section 20 bolt-on and about MRG for the current year, will come to a speedy and successful conclusion. I recognise the importance to the PTAs and PTEs of putting an end to any uncertainty about the funding that will be available to them to carry out their important functions in future years.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomats (Background)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many current ambassadors, deputy ambassadors and high commissioners have graduated from(a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge universities; and how many from universities in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) other universities. [17968]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The current numbers of ambassadors, deputy ambassadors and high commissioners who have graduated from the listed universities are as follows:

  (a) Oxford—63

  (b) Cambridge—55

  Universities in:

  (i) Scotland—12

  (ii) Wales—3

  (iii) Northern Ireland—1

  (iv) Others—84 (of whom 63 attended universities in England).

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many current overseas ambassadors, deputy ambassadors and high commissioners have originated from(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland or (d) Northern Ireland. [17967]

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

  Turkey
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Turkey. [17785]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our concerns about human rights form a major part of our dialogue with Turkey, both bilaterally and with our EU partners. The Turkish Government have undertaken to make a number of reforms in this area. We look forward to seeing these put into effect.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the total number of people who applied for visas at each British post in Turkey; and how many(a) were accepted, (b) were rejected and (c) resulted in re-application in each of the last 24 months. [18307]
  978
  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993 and 1994—the last two years for which full figures are available—the total number of applications made at entry clearance issuing posts in Turkey was:

  1993

  1994

  Ankara

  4,840

  3,371

  Istanbul

  47,390

  39,257

  Total

  52,230

  42,628

  Of these a total of 47,971 were issued and 2,744 were refused in 1993; and 38,130 were issued and 2,881 were refused in 1994.

  Records are not kept of the numbers of applicants who reapply.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held at the United Nations involving Britain concerning the Turkish military action in Iraq. [18308]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what direct representations have been made to the Government of Turkey concerning the invasion of the Kurdish areas of Iraq; and what response he received. [18418]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have made a number of representations to the Government of Turkey, both bilaterally and together with our EU partners. The Turkish Government have stated that the operation will be of limited duration and their forces withdrawn immediately Turkish objectives have been met.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific actions still need to be taken before UNAVEM III peacekeeping forces are ready to respond to a call to be deployed in Angola. [17826]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Preparations for the deployment of UNAVEM III infantry units to Angola are proceeding in accordance with the UN Secretary General's report to the Security Council of 27 March.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said to the House on 29 March, Official Report, column 1017, the deployment which is envisaged can be completed and fulfilled only if the parties on the ground fulfil their commitments.

  Anglo-American Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of the further proposed amendment of the 1958 Anglo-American mutual defence agreement. [17477]

  Mr. David Davis
  There are no further proposed amendments to the 1958 UK/US mutual defence agreement. The hon. Member may be referring to Cm 2785. This is the same amendment which was laid before the House in October last year in the country series of Command Papers. Its appearance in the treaty series simply records that it has entered into force for the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has in regard to(a) a fissile material production freeze, (b) the strengthening of safeguards on plutonium and enriched uranium, (c) the reduction of the number of United Kingdom nuclear warheads deployed and in store, (d) the banning of the stockpiling of surplus plutonium and (e) the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for presentation on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the review and extensions conference for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to be held in New York from 17 April.

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK supported the UN General Assembly resolution in 1993 calling for the negotiation of a convention to ban the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. Since then we have supported efforts in the conference on disarmament in Geneva to set up an ad hoc committee to begin negotiation of such a convention. On 23 March the CD agreed the mandate for the ad hoc committee. We hope negotiations will begin soon.

  The UK has full confidence in the effectiveness of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system and its ability to detect diversion of nuclear material from the purposes declared for it. Events in Iraq in recent years have already lead to a number of initiatives, which the UK has supported, to strengthen IAEA systems in regard to undeclared nuclear activities.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18325]

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what equipment the Government consider is covered by his Department's arms export policy to Taiwan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We restrict the export to Taiwan on licensable defence-related equipment. Applications for export licences to supply defence-related equipment and technology are considered case by case. In scrutinising applications, we shall in future give greater weight to the implications for regional security tension, rather than focusing narrowly on Taiwan's military capability as hitherto. This is the result of a regular review of our policy. It does not amount to any substantial relaxation.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Competing for Quality Initiative
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the "Competing for Quality" initiative. [18695]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government confirmed in the Command Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and 980
  Change" in January their intention to conduct such a review. From the results reported by Departments I believe that the initiative has already achieved significant efficiency improvements in public services while maintaining or improving quality. In seeking further improvements in value for money, it is important that we learn from the full range of experience gained in the last three years, and from both public and private sector participants in the programme. I have today commissioned the review to ensure that, in developing their future strategies for improving value for money, Departments and agencies can apply these techniques where they are most effective.

  The review will be run along the lines of a multi-departmental scrutiny by a team drawn from a range of Government Departments and the private sector; it will commence on 24 April 1995, and will report in the autumn. The review will focus on the main change associated with the initiative: the development of a large programme of market testing and contracting out in central Government. The team will scrutinise the results of the programme, analysing the experience gained in the application and management of the process to identify how far the objectives of the initiative have been achieved and how the techniques of market testing and contracting out should best be developed for the future.

  The full terms of reference are as follows:

  Terms of Reference:

  To evaluate the Government's competing for quality initiative—market testing and contracting out—as a means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

  In particular, to identify to what extent, through the introduction of competition, Government have been able to:

  —Obtain better value for taxpayers' money in the provision of public services;

  —Deliver quality of service within Government and to users of public services;

  —Provide users of public services with a wider variety of facilities and services;

  —Enable managers to concentrate on their core activities;

  —Generate innovative ways of providing public services;

  —Enable staff to operate at higher levels of performance and with a greater sense of job satisfaction;

  —Encourage the identification of new opportunities for private sector involvement in the delivery of public services.

  The study will also examine the methods by which the initiative has been managed and implemented within Government and communicated to other interested parties in order to identify those factors which have affected the extent to which the various objectives of the initiative have been achieved.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d), and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spend on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17614]
  981
  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities,

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cabinet Office

  COI

  Cabinet Office

  COI

  Cabinet Office

  COI

  (a) Television advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  £653,700

  £11,000

  £1,039,700

  £13,000

  £404,600

  £16,000

  (d) Other advertising and promotional materials and activities

  £681,400

  —

  £8,41,472

  —

  £960,700

  —

  (e) Total (a) to (d)

  £1,335,200

  £11,000

  £1,881,100

  £13,000

  £1,365,300

  £16,000

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising as a percentage of (e)

  7.4 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  5.4 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  7.2 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Cabinet Office expenditure is mostly on the citizens charter and the Civil Service College's promotional material.

  2. Figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

  3. Estimates for 1995–96 are not available.

  Corresponding figures for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which assembles its figures by calender year, are:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995 (estimated)

  (a) Television advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio advertising

  —

  £11,000

  £8,000

  —

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  £1,457,000

  £2,567,000

  £2,773,000

  £3,733,000

  (d) Other advertising and promotional materials and activities

  (e) Total (a) to (d)

  £1,457,000

  £2,578,000

  £2,781,000

  £3,733,000

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising as a percentage of (e)

  7.4 per cent.

  9.1 per cent.

  5.7 per cent.

  3.2 per cent.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the estimated costs for the current year and the next two years of the royal publicity services. [18311]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimated expenditure by COI in 1994–95 on publicity services for the royal household is £350,000. The estimates for 1995–96 contain provision for £471,000 and the survey for 1996–97 is the same.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase the resources allocated to the promotion and advertising of the code of practice on access to Government information over its second year of operations from 4 April. [17903]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure on publicity for the code of practice on access to Government information is kept under constant review to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently and cost-effectively. The Office of Public Service and Science is preparing a second edition of its explanatory leaflet, including an ethnic minority language version. Opportunities for further publicity will be taken as they arise.
  982
  (e) the totals in each years of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17613]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of expenditure on advertising and other promotional materials and activities by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies for each year since 1992–93 are as follows:

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17741]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no single electronic mail address to cover the whole of the Cabinet Office and the Office of Public Service and Science.

  My Internet electronic mail address is jhoram@ccta.gov.uk, and that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is dhunt@ccta.gov.uk.

  The Office of the Public Service and Science is leading and co-ordinating the use of information superhighways by Government Departments, stimulating public discussion of super-highway issues; and, at an international level, leading a G7 pilot project on "Government On-Line". The CCTA Government information service on the Internet provides information from all parts of the Department, including the Office

  983
  of Science and Technology, the citizens charter unit, the machinery of Government division, the Civil Service College and HMSO.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18332]

  Mr. Horam
  This question concerns operational matters and I have asked the chief executives of agencies in my Departments to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. Paul Flynn, Dated 3 April 1995:
  No Jobs have been taken over by contractors since April 1993 at Chessington Computer Centre (an Agency of the OPSS).
  69 jobs have disappeared through efficiency and productivity initiatives since April 1993.

  Letter from S. H. F. Hickey To Mr. Paul Flynn, Dated 31 March 1995:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply for the Civil Service College to your Question about job losses in agencies (Ref PQ18332)
  Over the past two years no jobs at the Civil Service College have been newly taken over by contactors. There has been a small increase in the overall numbers of staff employed at the College due to a substantial increase in the amount of training and related consultancy that we have undertaken.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  You asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he would list the number of jobs that have been lost by his agencies in the last two years that have been (a) taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  As this is an operational matter I have been asked to reply for the Central Office of Information.
  In March 1995 there were 493 permanent staff in COI against 583 in April 1993.
  No jobs have been lost as a direct result of market testing. The reduction in staff numbers is the result of:

  a) improvements in efficiency

  b) increase in the employment of contract staff to cope with the volatility of volume and nature of work.

  a) cessation or reduction of function

  COI does not maintain a staff complement and cannot realistically identify individual jobs lost or gained. Managers are constantly reviewing job functions and reassigning work in the light of current needs. The services provided to government by COI are constantly changing and there is no way of telling whether jobs now are the same as those that existed two years ago.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your question tabled on 30 March (N 95) regarding jobs lost in Agencies insofar as HMSO is concerned.
  HMSO trades in a dynamic environment and jobs are frequently changing as a result of business imperatives. Some jobs disappear as a consequence of greater IT sophistication, changing technology, reorganisation or because contracts are lost; others are formed to meet new requirements, to progress new initiatives, to enhance service or to service new contracts.
  In the provision of printing services, in particular, some work is performed in-house and some is contracted out. This balance is constantly changing, and it is not possible to identify particular jobs.
  The overall position is that on 31 December 1992, the total staff employed by HMSO (including temporary staff) was 3,174 and by 31 December 1994, this had fallen to 2,906.
  984
  Letter from Dr. Elizabeth McCloy to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your question about jobs lost in the past two years.
  In that period, the Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety Agency has lost three jobs. They were at the Atomic Weapons Establishment where my Agency was unsuccessful in retaining the provision of occupational health services. Only one of the posts was filled on a permanent basis and that incumbent has secured employment with the successful contractor.

  Letter from Craig Muir to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question of 30 March asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster:
  "if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors, and (b) disappeared.
  I have been asked to write in reply in relation to Recruitment and Assessment Services.
  In the last two years, 6 posts have been taken over by contractors due to the market testing exercise of Reprographics won by HMSO.
  We have also reduced staffing by 45 posts as a result of rationalisation of the Agency's working methods. A detailed breakdown of staffing numbers is attached.

  Grades

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  G6

  4

  3

  3

  G7

  15.5

  16.5

  15

  SEN PSYCH

  3

  2

  1

  SEO

  7

  3

  3

  HEO

  9

  7

  7

  EO

  31.5

  25

  25

  AO

  46

  38

  36

  AA

  24

  20

  16.5

  TYPIST

  9

  5

  5

  SIO

  1

  0.5

  0.5

  IO

  1

  0

  0

  SM2

  1

  0

  0

  SG1

  8

  3

  3

  SG2

  14.5

  11.5

  8.5

  Totals (exclusive causals)

  174.5

  134.5

  123.5

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the change in real terms in hon. Members' salaries since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The real terms increase in the parliamentary salary between mid-June 1979 and end December 1994 was 28 per cent.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he communicated to the Government Actuary's Department Her Majesty's Government's decision in respect of the SSRB's current recommendations; and if he will state the precise terms in which the decisions were conveyed to the Government Actuary's Department and his method of communicating them.
  985
  Mr. Newton
  My officials wrote to the Government Actuary's Department on 23 March 1995 asking it to complete its report on the basis that the Government would propose acceptance of the recommendation for an increased death-in-service benefit. A copy of the letter was sent to the fund secretary at the same time. I have also sent the right hon. Member a copy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Members of Parliament (Contacts)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what central record is kept of requests by groups of hon. Members seeking to discuss issues with Ministers. [18153]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, none.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government policy on official contact between civil servants and spokespersons in Her Majesty's official Opposition. [18138]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. Opposition spokesmen may request briefings on departmental organisation or policies, or in advance of overseas travel. Ministers would expect to be asked to give their authority for such meetings, and to be present if sensitive matters of public policy are to be discussed. Civil servants may also on occasions have dealings with Opposition spokesmen on Ministers' behalf; again, Ministers would expect to authorise such meetings.

  The conventions relating to confidential pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and opposition parties are described in a memorandum submitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee by the Cabinet Office in November 1994, printed at page 29, vol II of the Committee's Fifth Report, Session 1993–94. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that such contacts should be permitted from early 1996 in advance of the next general election.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all of the documents(a) seized by Ministry of Defence police from the offices of British Manufacture and Research Company in April 1990 and (b) held by the receivers of Astra Holdings and British Manufacture and Research Company are made available to the Scott inquiry. [18243]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. All the documents taken from the offices of the British Manufacture and Research Company were sent to the receivers for Astra on 22 June 1993. The question of the provision of any of these documents to the Scott inquiry is one for the receiver and the inquiry.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention. [18162]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. The legislation needed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify 986
  the chemical weapons convention will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and the Government's other legislative priorities permit.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 823, which other countries he had in mind as pursuing the same model of rail privatisation as Her Majesty's Government; and what were the points of similarities he was referring to in each case. [18163]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. A number of other European countries including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have restructured or are restructuring their railways to split responsibility for track and infrastructure from the operation of services. Both Germany and Holland plan to privatise some or all of their railways on this basis.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18434]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. The information as requested is not available.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18435]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18436]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. None.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18431]

  (2) To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18432]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18433]
  987
  The Lord President
  I have been asked to reply. The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94 separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17631]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. For this purpose, the Prime Minister's Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

EDUCATION

  Asbestos Survey
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what access headteachers in London have to the results of the 1983 Inner London education authority survey of asbestos in London schools. [17865]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The responsibilities of the former Inner London education authority for health and safety in schools are now exercised by individual inner London boroughs. It is not known whether ILEA made available the results of any asbestos survey to those authorities. The Department does not hold a copy of such a survey.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in her Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18322]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has only one next steps agency, the Teachers Pensions Agency, which was established on 1 April 1992. Changes in staffing numbers in the agency over the last two years have been as a result of internal efficiency improvements.

  Teachers Pensions Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers' employers are provided with services by the Teachers Pensions Agency. [16969]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Teachers Pensions Agency currently provides services to 3,368 teachers' employers.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the comfort and well-being of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith street, London. [18281]
  988
  Mr. Forth
  From 1 April 1995 smoking in sanctuary buildings is permitted only in three workrooms designated for this purpose.

  Pupil Ratios
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current ratio of(a) pupils to teachers and (b) pupils to other education staff in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other major competitor countries. [18067]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The readily available information on pupil-teacher ratios is shown in the table. Information on non-teaching staff is not held centrally.

  Pupil teacher ratios, public and private, 1991

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Australia

  18.5

  18.6

  Austria

  10.8

  10.0

  Belgium

  29.7

  7.7

  Denmark

  11.1

  10.7

  Finland

  18.8

  n/a

  France

  22.8

  14.0

  Germany

  20.5

  16.5

  Ireland

  26.9

  17.2

  Japan

  20.3

  17.3

  Netherlands

  19.7

  15.9

  Norway

  10.8

  8.9

  Portugal

  13.4

  11.6

  Spain

  22.0

  16.9

  Sweden

  10.4

  10.7

  Turkey

  30.4

  23.9

  United Kingdom3

  21.5

  14.7

  United States

  15.2

  15.5

  Notes:

  1Primary and secondary levels are defined in terms of the international classification for education. Thus the secondary level figures for the UK include pupils and teachers in the further education sector as well as secondary schools.

  2Excludes preprimary pupils, but includes their teachers.

  3The figures used to calculate the PTR's for both primary and secondary include maintained special education pupils, but exclude special education teachers.

  Source:

  3Education at a Glance, OECD, December 1993.

  Administration Costs
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost per local education authority school in Essex for administration in the last year for which statistics are available. [17840]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For the financial year 1995–96, the Essex local education authority's planned expenditure on management and administration amounts to £9,925 per school. This figure relates to all county, voluntary and special schools maintained by the authority and is derived from the budget statement published by the authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total budget for the Funding Agency for Schools in each of the years it has been in operation. [17986]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Funding Agency for Schools was established on 1 April 1994. Total grant paid to the agency in the financial year 1994–95 for its running
  989
  costs—revenue and capital expenditure—was £10.927 million.

  Union Jack
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the number and percentage of schools that fly the Union Jack on a daily basis since her predecessor called for more flag flying. [17855]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Teachers
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers were employed in Essex maintained schools in each of the last five years. [17838]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in Essex for January 1990 to January 1994.

  Teachers (FTE) in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in Essex

  January

  FTE

  1990

  12,407

  1991

  12,274

  1992

  12,251

  1993

  12,033

  19941

  11,616

  1Excludes sixth form colleges.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the salary bill for Essex teachers in maintained schools in each of the last five years; and how much is planned for the current year. [17839]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure by Essex local education authority on salaries for teachers in its maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools from 1989–90 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available, is shown in the table. Information on planned expenditure on teachers' salaries is not collected centrally.

  Essex LEA—Expenditure on teaching staff (in real terms)

  Year outturn

  £ million

  1989–90

  286.3

  1990–91

  276.8

  1991–92

  291.5

  1992–93

  294.0

  1993–941

  215.6

  1Provisional.

  Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations she has had from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the levels of university pay; [17789]

  (2) what representation she has had from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on
  990
  difficulties of recruitment to particular departments and specialisms; [17790]

  (3) what discussion she has had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the number of university staff on short-term contracts. [17788]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regularly and receives representations from them on a number of subjects. The issue of difficulties in recruitment to particular departments and specialisms was raised when she met the CVCP in September. The issue of university pay was raised when she spoke to the CVCP conference in December 1994. She has had no discussions with the CVCP about short-term contracts.

  A-level Courses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to reduce the number of students dropping out of GCE A-level courses before taking their examinations. [17791]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government attach great importance to this matter across 16 to 19-year-old education. If drop-out rates are to be reduced it is essential that young people choose the school or college, and the type of course which best suits their needs. Recent Government initiatives should increasingly help students and schools and colleges to achieve this. We have taken steps to: establish a range of high-quality vocational options to stand alongside the more established GCE A-levels and increase the choice of qualifications available to 16 to 19-year-olds; publish more and better information about the performance of schools and colleges at this phase of education; increase and improve careers education and guidance in schools and colleges; and provide colleges with a direct financial incentive to improve initial guidance and retention.

  Essex Local Education Authority
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time equivalent employees were employed by the Essex local education authority other than those engaged within schools, in each of the last four years. [17837]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on staff employed by local authorities is collected by the local government management board on behalf of the joint staffing watch group. The table shows the total number of staff employed within the education service of Essex local authority for the years 1991 to 1994. The survey does not distinguish between staff employed in schools and those employed elsewhere. As full-time equivalents of the part-time staff are not available, separate head-counts for both full-time and part-time staff are provided.

  Teacher and lecturers

  Education—Other

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  March

  1991

  12,539

  6,692

  3,157

  15,058

  1992

  12,270

  6,887

  3,064

  14,861

  991

  Teacher and lecturers

  Education—Other

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1993

  11,303

  5,607

  3,287

  13,887

  1994

  7,119

  4,901

  2,134

  11,627

  Notes:

  . The table covers all manual and non-manual staff in the LEA maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector, the special and further education sectors and central services. Staff employed by self-governing (GM) schools are not included. The 1994 figures exclude colleges which transferred to the new FE sector in April 1993.

  2. "Education—other" includes education support, clerical, school meals and premises related staff employed in schools and colleges, together with central services and administration within the education service.

  Students
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what regard she has and what consideration she gives in calculating student loans to students who are expected to continue their academic studies for considerable periods of the summer vacations and who are therefore excluded from being able to seek work; and what distinction she draws between students who are undertaking long courses financed by Erasmus or by commercial undertakings and students on medical courses who do not have access to this funding. [17515]

  Mr. Boswell
  An additional week's allowance, which forms part of the means-tested mandatory award, is available to students who attend their courses for longer than 30 weeks and three days in the academic year. The full-year loan rate is intended to provide support throughout the year. Any payments made to a student under the terms of the Erasmus scheme are disregarded as income for the purposes of calculating his award. Where a student receives payments by way of a bursary or remuneration from a commercial undertaking his award for the year may be reduced or extinguished, depending upon the value of the payments.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in higher education are on courses which extend beyond the average academic year; how many would be regarded as being on long courses within the meaning of the rules for student loans; and what percentage of these are medical students. [17513]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reason she declined to meet the chairman of the British Medical Association's medical student representatives. [17516]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Ms Jones) on Tuesday, 28 March 1995 Official Report, column 577.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra weeks allowances have been made available to medical students during 1994–95; by what percentage they were uprated; if the calculation on which the uprating has been based refers to the entire academic year or to the calendar year; what is the level of student finance available for a medical student during extra weeks and 992
  during ordinary weeks; why the distinction is made in the amount of money available over those two periods; what is the amount of money available in real terms for extra weeks and ordinary weeks; and if she will make a statement. [17514]

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the current Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations, the additional allowances in respect of extra attendance are: £74.05 per week for students living away from the parental home and studying in London; £55.45 per week for students living away from home and studying elsewhere; and £38.90 per week for students living at home. These rates were uprated by 4 per cent. over the 1993–94 allowances and the regulations apply to the year which began on 1 September 1994. The normal main rates of grant and additional allowances, as well as full and final year rates of student loans, are available to eligible medical students in the same way as for all other students. The extra weeks allowance is available for students who are required to attend their courses over and above a period of 30 weeks and three days in any academic year—25 weeks and three days in the case of courses at Oxford and Cambridge universities. There is no arithmetical connection between the extra weeks allowances and the corresponding main grant rates when those rates are expressed in weekly terms.

  Science Courses (Women)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps her Department is taking to increase the number of women taking introductory courses in technology-based subjects; [16842]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to encourage women to pursue science courses in universities. [16386]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are committed to encouraging more young people, both men and women, to study science and technology. The proportion of women among undergraduate students in these subjects has risen from 31 per cent. in 1990–91 to 34 per cent. in 1992–93.

  By requiring all pupils to study mathematics, science and technology to age 16, the national curriculum should lead to greater interest in these subjects among all pupils, including girls.

  The new science general national vocational qualifications have widened the options available to all pupils, including girls. The latest available evidence suggests that 35 per cent. of GNVQ science students are female.

  My right hon. Friend is not at present convinced that further special measures are needed specifically to increase recruitment of women and girls into the study of science and technology. She will, however, keep the matter under review.

  Student Loans
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of students took up student loans in the last year for which figures are available.
  [15951]

  Mr. Boswell
  Some 430,000 students took out loans in the academic year 1993–94, which represents 47 per cent. of all eligible students.

EMPLOYMENT

  Temporary Work
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the work force is engaged in temporary work; and what was the figure 10 years ago. [16024]

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey for Great Britain show that in spring 1994, 6.4 per cent. of employees were in temporary jobs, compared with 5.9 per cent. in spring 1984.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to conduct research into the effects of a national minimum wage. [16025]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have looked at unemployment among young people in France at 23 per cent.—a country which has a national minimum wage—and concluded that no further research is necessary.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals in the United Kingdom earn less than £3 per hour. [16026]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The results of the latest New Earnings Survey show that some 42 full-time and part-time employees per 1,000 in Great Britain earn less than £3 per hour.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the future funding of TECs. [16029]

  Mr. Paice
  A variety of representations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for further developing the role of the TECs in developing employment opportunities. [16019]

  Mr. Paice
  I press training and enterprise councils continually to achieve further improvements in effectiveness and value for money in all the activities that they are contracted to undertake.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available information on the number of male and female directors of training and enterprise councils; how many are from(a) ethnic minority backgrounds and (b) the private sector; what information he has about which industrial sectors they come from; and how many of the non-private sector directors are from (i) local authorities, (ii) local education authorities, (iii) other educational organisations, (iv) trade unions, (v) voluntary organisations, (vi) ethnic minority organisations, (vii) employers' associations and (viii) others. [17868]

  Mr. Paice
  There are currently 814 male directors and 118 female directors on training and enterprise council boards. There are 79 chairmen and two chairwomen.

  I am unable to provide the ethnic minority and industrial sector information as it is not held centrally. However, there are 704 directors from the private sector.
  994
  The total number of non-private sector directors is 309, and is broken down in the following table:

  Number

  (i) Local authorities

  110

  (ii) Local education authorities

  29

  (iii) Other education authorities

  32

  (iv) Trade unions

  58

  (v) Voluntary organisations

  37

  (vi) Ethnic minority organisations

  2

  (vii) Employers associations

  11

  (viii) Others

  30

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his objectives in the abolition of employment agency licensing. [16030]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our objective in abolishing employment agency licensing was to reduce the financial and administrative burdens on the industry, while maintaining controls for the protection of agency users.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role his Department is playing in the application of objective 1 funding on Merseyside to the provision of employment and training. [16031]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department plays an important role in the partnership which is taking forward the objective 1 programme. This includes helping to ensure that European social fund funding is targeted at those people who are most in need of support.

  Small Businesses (Disabled Employees)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to encourage and assist small businesses of under 20 employees to employ disabled people. [16032]

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has taken to assist disabled people to obtain work in small companies; and if he will make a statement. [17405]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government encourage the recruitment of disabled people through its policy of educating and persuading employers to recognise the abilities of disabled people and by the promotion of good employment practice.

  This is backed by practical help to both individuals and employers, including small employers, through a wide range of services and programmes. For example, the Employment Service's placing, assessment and counselling teams—PACTs—offer a comprehensive and local specialised service to help disabled people obtain and retain employment. PACTs also give advice to employers about recruitment and general practices relating to the employment of disabled people and promote the code of practice on the employment of disabled people. The disability symbol is now used by more than 1,200 employers of all sizes, all of whom have given a commitment to interview any disabled job applicant who meets the minimum criteria for a particular job vacancy.
  995
  In addition the access to work programme provides disabled people with a wide range of flexible help to overcome barriers to employment including employment in small companies. It can pay for a communicator at a job interview or at work for people who are deaf or have a hearing impairment; a reader or assistant for people who are blind or have a visual impairment; adaptions to vehicles or help towards taxi fares or other transport costs and equipment to suit particular needs and alterations to premises or working conditions.

  Young People
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Government are taking to improve the employment prospects of young people. [16013]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Government are taking to improve the employment prospects of young people. [16017]

  Mr. Paice
  Modern apprenticeships will add to the comprehensive range of education and training initiatives enabling young people to develop skills relevant to jobs now and in the future.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are classified as long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [16014]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In January 1995 on the unadjusted basis there were 927,078 people claimant unemployed for over a year—more than 150,000 fewer than a year ago.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure;and if he will make a statement. [16016]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  United Kingdom seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment was 2,364,700 in February 1995—a fall of 607,000 since December 1992.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those major countries in the European Union where the level of unemployment is on a clear downward trend. [16020]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The United Kingdom is the only major European Union country where the unemployment rate on the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation basis has been falling steadily.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the long-term unemployed are benefiting from the Government's policies. [16407]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's economic and labour market policies are increasing employment opportunities for everyone. The number of jobs increased by 262,000 last year. Long-term unemployed people are sharing the benefits. Last year the number unemployed for a year or more fell by 150,000. We are determined to continue this trend. This year we are making jobfinder's grant, workwise and 1-2-1 available nationally. We are extending community action and work trials. We are asking training and enterprise councils to focus training for work more sharply on getting people into jobs. And we are piloting jobmatch and extending workstart pilots. With the help of these measures we are confident that the Employment Service 996
  will meet its new target for 1995–96 of placing 560,000 people unemployed for six months or more into work.

  Working Parents
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's policy on promotion of working practices which enable men to take an active role in the care of their children. [16015]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government encourage the introduction of flexible working arrangements including, for example, part-time work and job sharing which can help men and women combine employment with their family responsibilities.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of lone mothers with dependent children are in work; and what were the equivalent figures in 1979. [16018]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates from the Labour Force Survey for autumn 1994 show that the numbers of lone mothers in work has risen from 350,000 to 460,000. This represents 39 per cent. of lone mothers of working age with dependent children. The equivalent figure for spring 1981—the earliest date available—is 45 per cent.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his response to the Employment Select Committee's first report of Session 1994–95 on mothers in employment. [16022]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are considering the report and will respond to the Committee in due course.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of real take-home pay currently and in 1979. [16021]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Real take-home pay has increased significantly at all levels since 1979. For example, the average take-home pay of a single man at the bottom 10 per cent. of the earnings distribution has risen by 23 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  Older Workers
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government's "Getting On" campaign has resulted in increased recruitment and retention of older workers; what figures are available; what plans he has to commission an independent evaluation of the campaign; and if he will make a statement. [17270]

  Miss Widdecombe
  When I launched the campaign on behalf of older workers a primary aim was to raise the profile of older workers and get the message across to employers that discrimination on the grounds of age was wasteful, shortsighted and bad business practice. I am pleased to say that we have placed older workers very clearly and firmly on the agenda.

  I am glad to say that employers' attitudes are changing and that there is a greater recognition of the value of older workers. The "Getting On" booklet has attracted considerable interest since its launch in March 1993. Some 16,500 copies were issued to employers at that time, and over 8,000 have been requested subsequently by employers, researchers and individuals. Nearly 2,000

  997
  copies have been dispatched this year alone. In January this year I launched a booklet aimed at individuals, "Too Old … who says?". In addition to the copies being made available through Employment Service jobcentres, some 25,000 booklets have been requested.

  The campaign which is still on-going will be evaluated in due course. However, it is too early to do so or to obtain reliable detailed measurements of its specific effects on recruitment and retention.

  Employment Service Client Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what way the pay or additional remuneration of employment service client advisers is related to the number or proportion of new or existing claimants whose applications for benefits payments are turned down or scaled back; and what direct link there is between client adviser remuneration and success in placing clients in work. [17818]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the extent to which the pay of Employment Service (ES) Client Advisers is related to the number of claimants whose applications for benefits payments are turned down or scaled back; and whether there is any direct link between Client Adviser remuneration and their success in placing clients in work.
  Client Advisers are paid within a salary range which reflects the responsibilities of their posts. In keeping with Government policy, that pay and reward systems in the public sector should demonstrate a regular and direct link between a person's contribution to standards of service delivered and their reward, annual performance pay awards are determined by an individual's performance against a range of annual objectives.
  The ES's overall operational objectives are set out in an Annual Performance Agreement and are translated into standards of performance which are set for Local Offices. An individual Client Adviser's objectives cover a range of expected outcomes, including placing clients into work and ensuring the accurate and timely payment of benefits, to those clients who meet the conditions for receiving them. Their objectives therefore contribute to the delivery of the Local Office standards of service, and hence the overall objectives of the ES, as set out in the Annual Performance Agreement.
  Performance against those objectives is reviewed regularly and assessed annually, resulting in an Overall Performance Mark which reflects the degree to which an individual has exceeded, met, or not met the full range of objectives that they have been set.
  In arriving at an overall assessment of a Client Advisers performance, no single objective is given greater prominence. It is therefore not possible to draw a direct correlation between the pay a Client Adviser receives and the number of clients whose applications for benefits payments are turned down, or scaled back, nor their success in placing clients in work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the letter from Mr. Rimington CB of the Health and Safety Executive to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 January, what visits have taken place since 1989 to the Forth rail bridge by the Health and Safety Executive; what inspection the Health 998
  and Safety Executive has undertaken of the improvements suggested in 1989; if he will place in the Library the Health and Safety Executive's assessment of the use of water-based paint on the Forth rail bridge; and what evidence the Health and Safety Executive can adduce for its belief that Railtrack is fully committed to the well-being and preservation of the bridge and its attitude to safety. [16201]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Health and Safety Executive inspectors made a number of visits to the bridge between 1989 and February 1995 to assess the precautions taken to protect workers and to confirm the safety of trains crossing the bridge. The Director General of HSE, Mr. Rimington CB, has asked Her Majesty's railway inspectorate to undertake a full assessment of the structural integrity of the bridge from the point of view of its continued safety and integrity. To the extent that the use of water-based paint has a bearing on these issues,it will be taken into account. HSE's assessment will be published.

  Part-time Students
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time students have lost their benefits through the present review by the employment offices. [16432]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no such review. Guidance was recently issued relating to the existing rules on part-time study. I have asked the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency to write to the hon. Member on this point; a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18323]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of posts lost to the Employment Service between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1995 as a result of work being taken over by external contractors totalled 574.

  The total reduction in posts within ES over the same period was 3,280. The main factor in this drop has been falling levels of unemployment, to which much ES staffing is related.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Household
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Natrional Heritage what was the cost at 1994 prices of(a) furnishing and (b) decoration, fixtures and fittings for the accommodation of each of the directors of the royal household.

  Mr. Sproat
  The following sums have been spent since 1 April 1991 on furnishing and equipment including furniture, curtains and soft furnishings, light fittings, refrigerators, washing machines, crockery and so on.
  999

  Cash £

  1994–95 prices £

  The Master of the Household

  30,000

  31,287

  The Comptroller, Lord Chamberlain's Office

  112,000

  121,754

  The Director of Finance and Property Services

  115,000

  115,000

  The Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps

  53,000

  55,839

  Following a decision in 1994, furnishings and equipment are no longer paid for from public funds.

  Decoration, fixtures and fittings are included in building contracts which, depending on the particular circumstances, may also cover modernisation of accommodation, rewiring, renewal of plumbing, fire alarms and so on. The total of these costs is:

  Cash £

  1994–95 prices £

  The Master of the Household

  68,000

  69,913

  The Comptroller, Lord Chamberlain's Office

  195,000

  211,477

  The Director of Finance and Property Services

  142,000

  143,380

  The Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps

  68,000

  71,211

  VAT and fees are included.

  Costs incurred before the creation of the Royal Household Property Services Department in April 1991 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Bosman v. UEFA et al
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect the outcome of the Bosman v. UEFA et al case in the European Court of Justice will have on association football in Great Britain. [17955]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is not possible to predict the verdict of the European Court of Justice in this case, and it would therefore be premature to seek to predict the consequences for association football. The Government are monitoring the position closely.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what submissions his Department presented to the European Court of Justice on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the case of Bosman v. UEFA et al. [17954]

  Mr. Sproat
  None.

  Ground Safety
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to help fund sports ground safety work outside the Football League. [18912]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am pleased to announce that the trustees of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts have agreed to dedicate up to £8 million a year for sports ground safety work in rugby league, rugby union, cricket and, where appropriate, non-league football, from 6 May 1995. This follows the Government's decision to reduce pool betting duty by 5 per cent.,1000
  which the pools companies have agreed should enable them to maintain their contributions to the foundation.

  Grant aid will be distributed using the well established and effective machinery of the Football Trust. Further details will be announced shortly following consultation between the trust and the relevant sports governing bodies.

  For smaller sports clubs with limited finances this is a significant development. For the first time, clubs outside football will be able to apply to the Football Trust for a contribution to carry out important safety work.

  I have had many representations from other sports, and from football clubs in the Vauxhall Conference, who feel that they should be able to seek greater financial support from the trust for stadium redevelopment work.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he has made in creating, in consultation with local authorities, a new council to advise him on his English public library responsibilities. [18813]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced on 7 October 1994 that I would be creating a new council to advise me on my specific responsibilities for libraries in England and principally on public library issues. I also said that I would be inviting local authorities to nominate members of the council.

  Consultation with the local authority associations is now complete and I am establishing the new council, to be known as the Advisory Council on Libraries. It will take over with immediate effect the statutory responsibilities set out in the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act. The Library and Information Services Council (England) will be dissolved.

  The council will initially have 11 members, including its chairman. All members will be appointed until 31 December 1996, when arrangements will be reviewed. The first chairman will be Mr. Michael Messenger, county librarian of Hereford and Worcester. The other members will be:

  Councillor Lyn Brown—London Borough of Newham

  Councillor Chris Heinitz—Wakefield Metropolitan Council

  Councillor Elgar Jenkins—Bath District Council

  Councillor Fanny Lines—Surrey County Council

  Councillor Sally Marshall—Norfolk County Council

  Mr. Keith Crawshaw—Director of Leisure Services and Head of Libraries, Sheffield City Council

  Mr. John Hicks—County Librarian, Royal County of Berkshire Dr. Bob McKee—Director of Libraries and Arts, Solihull Metropolitan Borough

  Mr. Brian Burch—Librarian, University of Leicester

  Dr. Gillian Cross—Author

  The council's terms of reference will be as follows:
  "To advise the Secretary of State upon such matters connected with the provision or use of library facilities as set out in Section 2 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  In particular, to advise the Secretary of State on:
  matters which fall directly within his responsibilities for English public libraries or which, through the direct responsibility of other Departments of Government, have a significant impact on those responsibilities;
  the allocation of direct grants and awards to English public libraries, or to other bodies or persons, so as to benefit and improve the provision of library facilities to members of the public;

  1001
  issues affecting providers and users of English public library services, and how consultation and co-operation between users and providers may be effectively promoted;
  which aspects of public library services in England require detailed investigation and how such aspects might be examined and debated."

  The council will be separate from the new Library and Information Commission, which will act as a forum for Government policy on library and information provision in general.

  I am confident that, as a body in effect jointly owned by the Government and by those directly responsible for providing public library services, the advisory council will carry significant authority, and I wish it well in its work.

  Burial Places (Monarchs)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the burial places of each reigning monarch since and including Alfred the Great, where they are known. [17489]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Alfred: Winchester Cathedral1

  Edward the Elder: Winchester Cathedral

  Athelstan: Malmesbury Abbey

  Edmund I: Glastonbury Abbey

  Eadred: Winchester Cathedral

  Eadwig: Winchester Cathedral

  Edgar: Glastonbury Abbey

  Edward the Martyr: Shaftesbury Abbey2

  Aethelred II: Old St. Paul's Cathedral3

  Sweyn: Roeskild Cathedral, Denmark

  Edmund Ironside: Glastonbury Abbey

  Cnut: Winchester Cathedral

  Harold Harefoot: probably St. Clement Danes4

  Harthacnut: Winchester Cathedral

  Edward the Confessor: Westminster Abbey

  Harold Godwinson: Waltham Abbey5

  William the Conqueror: St. Stephen's Abbey, Caen France6

  William II: Winchester Cathedral

  Henry I: Reading Abbey

  Stephen: Faversham Abbey

  Henry II: Fontevrault Abbey, France

  Richard I: Fontevrault Abbey, France

  John: Worcester Cathedral

  Henry III: Westminster Abbey

  Edward I: Westminster Abbey

  Edward II: Gloucester Cathedral

  Edward III: Westminster Abbey

  Richard II: Westminister Abbey

  Henry IV: Canterbury Cathedral

  Henry V: Westminster Abbey

  Henry VI: St. George's Chapel, Windsor7

  Edward IV: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  Edward V: Westminster Abbey8

  Richard III: Greyfriars Chapel, Leicester

  Henry VII: Westminster Abbey

  Henry VIII: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  Edward VI: Westminster Abbey

  Mary I: Westminster Abbey

  Elizabeth I: Westminster Abbey

  James I: Westminster Abbey

  Charles I: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  Charles II: Westminster Abbey

  James II: St. Germain en Laye, France

  William III and Mary II: Westminster Abbey

  Anne: Westminster Abbey

  1002

  George I: Herrenhausen,Germany9

  George II: Westminster Abbey

  George III: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  George IV: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  William IV: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  Victoria: Windsor (Frogmore)

  Edward VII: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  George V: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  Edward VIII: Windsor (Frogmore)

  George VI: St. George's Chapel, Windsor

  1 Originally New Minster, Winchester; then Hyde Abbey, Winchester; now thought to be in mortuary chest in the Cathedral.

  2 Originally Wareham Abbey.

  3 Tomb lost in Great Fire 1666.

  4 Originally probably at Old Abbey Church of St. Peter's, Westminster.

  5 Originally on the seashore at Hastings.

  6 Tomb subsequently disturbed.

  7 Originally buried at Chertsey Abbey.

  8 Thought to have been buried originally at the Tower of London. Bones thought to be his were subsequently reburied at Westminster.

  9 Originally buried in the Leineschlosskirche, Hanover, Germany.

  Lottery Scratch Cards
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with Camelot concerning the impact of the introduction of the national lottery scratch cards on the raising of money for medical research by charities using scratch cards; what review he will undertake of the overall funding of medical research by charitable fund-raising methods analogous to those used by national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [17999]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Camelot Group plc has always intended that the instant win game cards would be introduced as part of its overall promotion of the lottery. This development was included in its application for the licence to run the lottery and is expected to be an important factor in its achievement of the forecasts of revenue for the national lottery development fund which underlay its bid.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the Tenovus medical charity concerning compensation for lost medical research income from the operation of the national lottery; if he will make a statement on the compensation procedure available to charities adversely affected by the lottery; and what consultations he has with Oflot and Camelot concerning the impact of the lottery on charitable fund raising. [18037]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: During the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill, the Government undertook to monitor charitable income once the national lottery was established.

  Telephone Inquiry Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when
  1003
  they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17449]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Department of National Heritage does not operate any special public information inquiry services of this kind.

  Privacy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of National Heritage (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to create new criminal offences to prohibit certain types of physical intrusion, harassment and covert surveillance; and if he will make a statement; [17256]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations for criminal offences and for new civil wrongs which were contained in the report of the committee of privacy and related matters chaired by Sir David Calcutt QC; and if he will make a statement. [17258]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Government's conclusions on proposals for new measures to prevent intrusion and protect privacy will be set out in our response to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on privacy and media intrusion. This will be published when we have completed our consideration of the issues relating to the proposed criminal and civil remedies.

  Press Complaints
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce a statutory regime for dealing with complaints against the press; and if he will make a statement. [17257]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Government believe that self-regulation is preferable to a statutory regime for dealing with complaints against the press. We look to the newspaper industry and the Press Complaints Commission to vindicate their claim that self-regulation can be made effective. We will announce our conclusions in our response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the legislation governing eligibility for concessionary television licences. [17408]

  Mr. Dorrell
  As indicated in the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", published last July, the concessionary television licence scheme was thoroughly reviewed in 1988, prior to the introduction of the current regulations. The Government have no plans for any further review of the scheme.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17729]
  1004
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage is currently setting up a Internet electronic mail pilot and the arrangements for handling electronic mail to Ministers and the Department are under consideration. Electronic mail addresses have not yet been created.

  The Department is monitoring developments in the area of the information super-highway and is involved in the DTI multimedia forum, the G7 information society activity, and with developments in the areas of broadcasting and other media services. A number of the Department's sponsored bodies are working on information super-highway issues and applications, and the Department is liaising with them, other interested Departments such as CCTA, and our partners in the European Union.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the forecast for Camelot's profit for the first year of operating the national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [17801]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for the Director General of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the national lottery on the demand for goods; what forecast he has made of the amount which will be spent by consumers on the lottery in 1995–96 and the percentage taken in taxation; and what forecast he has made of the number of prizes and the income to Camelot in 1995–96. [17186]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Lottery duty is set at 12 per cent. Forecasts of sales of national lottery tickets, the number of national lottery prizes and the income to Camelot in 1995–96 are all matters for the licensed operator, Camelot Group plc. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published his economic forecast in the Red Book.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executives of the agencies are best placed to provide answers. I have accordingly asked the chief executives of HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office to reply direct. The Court Service was not an agency in the period covered by the question hut became an executive agency on 3 April 1995.
  1005
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question relating to jobs taken over by contractors or that have disappeared in the last two years in the Public Record Office.
  16.5 posts were taken over by contractors in the last two years.
  No jobs have disappeared.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning jobs that have been lost to agencies in the last two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors, and (b) disappeared. I can provide the following information:-
  Her Majesty's Land Registry, which is a separate government department of the Lord Chancellor, was established as an Executive Agency in July 1990. Because of the slump in property market activity since the boom in the 1980s the Registry has consistently reduced its staff in post since 1989.

  (a) 15 posts have been taken over by contractors or been redeployed as a result of the Registry's market testing programme.

  (b) the number of staff employed by the Land Registry has reduced by 893 through natural wastage and voluntary early retirement.

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from S. Hutcheson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary question, listed on 30 March 1995, regarding jobs which have either been taken over by contractors or disappeared.
  The Public Trust Office had a total of 585 staff when it became an Executive Agency on 1 July 1994 and since then has not had any posts taken over by contractors.
  As a result of the market testing of the Typing Services in the Public Trust Office in 1993. prior to our move to Agency status. there was a reduction of two typing manager and six typing posts.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Detective Agencies
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply of 23 March, if he will list all private detective agencies, other than Brays Detective Agency, which have been retained by the Treasury Solicitors since 1993, in each case giving the Government Department concerned, the purpose of the contract with the detective agency and the total expenditure to date. [17355]

  The Attorney-General
  The agencies listed in the table have been used by the Treasury Solicitor on a case by case basis in the financial year 1994–95. The main services provided by the agencies have been: service of process, investigation of the whereabouts and financial status of debtors and other defendants, collection of evidence, and inquiries relating to personal injury claims.
  1006

  Agency

  Department

  1Amount £

  Wallington Reid

  Ministry of Defence

  9,950

  Home Office

  Gordon-Moores Investigation

  Charity Commission Department of the Environment

  18,175

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Transport

  HM Treasury

  Ministry of Defence

  Office of Fair Trading

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Harding Evans

  Department of the Environment

  3,260

  Strange, Strange and Gardner

  Department of Trade and Industry

  3,755

  Department of Transport Home Office

  Euro-Tec

  Department of Trade and Industry

  16,025

  Department of Transport

  Department for Education

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of the Environment

  Austin and Scott

  Department of Transport

  11,695

  HM Treasury

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of the Environment

  Home Office

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Nathan and Co.

  Department of Transport

  295

  Finlays Bureau of Investigation

  Department of Transport

  170

  Ian Snipe and Co.

  Department of Transport

  650

  J. S. Knott Investigation Agency

  Department of Transport

  170

  Laurenson Bureau of Investigation

  Department of Transport Ministry of Defence

  1,420

  Home Office

  R. D. Denman

  Department of Transport

  305

  Cox Greenwood Investigations

  Ministry of Defence

  165

  European Research and Investigation

  Ministry of Defence

  360

  Prime Minister's Office

  Hogan and Co. International

  Ministry of Defence

  175

  Chimera International

  Ministry of Defence

  210

  Rees, Jones, Huntbach and Phoenix

  Ministry of Defence

  815

  Sharp Investigations

  Ministry of Defence

  3,900

  1007

  Agency

  Department

  1Amount £

  Slater Heelis

  Office of Fair Trading

  295

  Alan H. Jones Investigations

  Home Office

  620

  Peter Hough Investigations

  Home Office

  745

  Sharp Investigations

  Home Office

  875

  David N. Bartlett

  Home Office

  175

  Island Investigations

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  155

  1 Amounts paid to the agency in the financial year 1994–95.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the jobs that have been lost to the agency in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18329]

  The Attorney-General
  No posts have been lost to the Government Property Lawyers' Agency since it was established in April 1993, whether as a result of contracting out or otherwise.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading about the bus industry since deregulation, and what particular advice he has received with regard to Stagecoach plc and Mainline. [18319]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trailing has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether or not to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, where mergers have been referred, on action to take after the MMC has reported. He also gives advice on action to take following MMC monopoly and Competition Act reports. He has advised accordingly on all MMC reports involving the bus industry since deregulation in October 1986. The DGFT's advice on the MMC report on the Stagecoach Holdings plc/Mainline Partnership Ltd merger was that Stagecoach should be required to divest its 20 per cent. shareholding in Mainline.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigations there have been involving Stagecoach plc since bus deregulation; and on how many occasions he has accepted, rejected or altered the recommendation from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; [18317]

  (2) how many Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigations there have been into the bus industry since bus deregulation; and on how many occasions he accepted, rejected or altered the recommendation from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [18318]
  1008
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since bus deregulation in October 1986, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has undertaken 15 enquiries relating to the bus industry, including one case where the MMC has yet to report and two where their reports have not yet been published. Eight of these inquiries involved Stagecoach. In all cases so far published Ministers accepted the MMC's findings but in three merger cases, all involving Stagecoach, Ministers asked the Director General of Fair Trading to negotiate undertakings which went further than the MMC recommended; these cases were Stagecoach/Portsmouth Citybus, Stagecoach/Formia and Stagecoach/Mainline Partnership Ltd.

  Directors (Disqualification)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons he would not proceed with a recommendation to disqualify an individual as a company director. [18315]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Secretary of State would not proceed with a recommendation to disqualify if he felt that there was insufficient evidence to show that the director's conduct made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company. Proceedings would also not be instituted where it was felt that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many recommendations he has received in the past year to disqualify individuals as company directors; how many he has approved; and how many he has rejected. [18314]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  During the year ended 28 February 1995 the Secretary of State has in respect of England and Wales dealt with the following:

  Official receiver

  Insolvency practitioner

  Reports received in the past year (companies)

  273

  3,238

  Proceedings authorised (directors)

  307

  470

  Reports not accepted (companies)

  22

  2,715

  Although some of the reports received in any given year will he dealt with in that year there will be cases carried over to the next year. Accordingly the numbers of reports received, not accepted and proceedings authorised will not correlate.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he uses in deciding whether to disqualify an individual as a company director. [18316]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Secretary of State when deciding whether to institute disqualification proceedings has regard to the matters for determining unfitness of directors as detailed in schedule 1 to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and also those matters which the courts have held to constitute unfit conduct in numerous judgments since 1986.

  Having established that there is evident of unfit conduct, proceedings will then be taken if it is in the public interest to do so.

  Non-fossil Fuel Option
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the timetable for NFFO 4 bids. [18265]

  Mr. Page
  I am currently considering the arrangements for the fourth Renewables Order, in consultation with the renewables generation industry, and I hope to be able to make an initial announcement about the order later this year.

  Scotch Whisky Exports (South Africa)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent negotiations his Department has held with brandy producers in South Africa in respect of the level of duties being levied against Scotch whisky. [16374]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The British High Commission in South Africa has supported the representations made to the Board on Tariffs and Trade by Scotch whisky producers and the Scotch Whisky Association pressing for rejection of the application made by domestic brandy producers for increase of duty on imported spirits. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade raised the issue with the Government of South Africa during his visit to South Africa last week. We have had no direct contact with South African brandy producers.

  Electricity and Telephone Lines
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department does to encourage the siting underground of new and existing power lines for electricity and telephone infrastructure. [17894]

  Mr. Page
  The placing of electricity lines above ground or below ground is in the first instance a matter for the licence holder concerned. The Government expect such lines to be placed underground whenever it is safe and practicable to do so at a cost which would not lay too heavy a burden on the general body of consumers. This applies particularly to the low voltage network, about 80 per cent. of which is already underground. Electricity companies have a policy of placing cables underground where economically possible and schemes to underground existing overhead lines have been implemented in various villages. With certain limited exceptions, Telecommunications Act licences require that new telecommunications lines and apparatus, the siting considerations for which are broadly equivalent to those for low voltage electricity lines, shall be installed underground other than in the case of emergency work. Telecommunications operators are also required to consider carefully requests to resite existing lines underground.

  Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of coal was imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [17831]
  1010
  Mr. Page
  The total quantities of coal imported into the United Kingdom over the past 10 years were:

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  12,732

  1986

  10,554

  1987

  9,781

  1988

  11,685

  1989

  12,137

  1990

  14,783

  1991

  19,611

  1992

  20,339

  19931

  18,400

  19941

  15,850

  1 Figures for 1993 and 1994 are provisional and include a small element of estimation. The latest figures on coal imports are available in the Department of Trade and Industry's bulletin "Energy Trends".

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of coal was(a) deep mined and (b) opencast mined in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [17832]

  Mr. Page
  The quantities of coal produced in the United Kingdom in the past 10 years were:

  Thousand tonnes

  Year

  Deepmined

  Opencast

  1Total

  1985

  75,289

  15,569

  94,111

  1986

  90,366

  14,275

  108,099

  1987

  85,957

  15,786

  104,533

  1988

  83,762

  17,899

  104,066

  1989

  79,628

  18,657

  99,820

  1990

  72,899

  18,134

  92,762

  1991

  73,357

  18,636

  94,202

  1992

  65,800

  18,187

  84,493

  1993

  50,457

  17,006

  68,199

  19942

  31,102

  16,614

  48,030

  1 Includes an estimate for slurry.

  2 Figures for 1994 are provisional. The latest figures on coal production are available in the Department of Trade and Industry's bulletin, "Energy Trends".

  Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what is the latest information available about the condition of the Chernobyl nuclear plant including assessment of the risks of further accident; and what progress has been made to secure international action to finance a programme to make secure and then decommission the site. [17478]

  Mr. Page
  The safety of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is the responsibility of the relevant authorities in Ukraine. Only they would be able to provide full details on the current safety status of the plant. A European Union funded feasibility study has recently reported on options for dealing with the shelter over the remains of the destroyed unit 4. This was not an in-depth safety assessment of the Chernobyl plant as a whole.

  In the light of international concerns over the safety situation at Chernobyl, G7 Heads of Government proposed an action plan at the 1994 Naples economic summit. The plan aims to secure early closure of the remaining units at Chernobyl within the framework of a sound long-term energy sector strategy for Ukraine. G7

  1011
  leaders agreed to provide $200 million to support the action plan. The EU has promised 100 million ECU from its TACIS technical assistance programme and 400 million ECU from the Euratom loans facility. Work on the action plan is currently being taken forward by a G7/Ukraine task force which is due to report shortly.

  EC Trading Restrictions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers enable him to initiate, approve, disapprove, or prevent executive action by the European Community or Union to restrict or vary trading arrangements with third countries(a) where no treaties or other agreement schemes exist and (b) when they do. [18036]

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Trading arrangements with third countries are governed by EC Council Regulations 3030/93, 517/94, 519/94 and 3285/94, made under article 113 of the EC treaty in implementation of the common commercial policy. They may be amended by qualified majority in the EC Council, but any amendment must be consistent with the EC's bilateral and multilateral obligations to third countries, including GATT. They all provide for the taking of measures to safeguard EC interests against import surges in specific circumstances. Any member state may initiate the procedures for such measures; the procedures vary, but in all cases the measures may be either approved or disapproved by qualified majority in the EC Council. The position is essentially the same in respect of third countries with which the EC has preferential trading agreements.

TREASURY

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [17030]

  Mr. Nelson
  The analysis sought of all legislation introduced by the Departments responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1965 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member. References are frequently made in legislation to officers of state and general references are occasionally made to persons who are Members of one or other of the Houses of Parliament.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each Government Department the total amount paid in overtime payments for each of the last three years. [18064]

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally. Each Department is responsible for determining its own overtime payment schemes for eligible grades within its running cost limits.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what qualifications by examination were held by Mr. Pennant-Rea at the time he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Bank of England; [17829]

  (2) what posts were held by Mr. Pennant-Rea in the 10 years before he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Bank of England; and what assessment he has made of Mr. Pennant-Rea's suitability for the post of Deputy Governor; [17827]

  (3) on whose recommendation Mr. Pennant-Rea was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Bank of England. [17828]

  Mr. Nelson
  At the time he was appointed Deputy Governor, Mr. Pennant-Rea held a BA degree in economics from Trinity college Dublin and MA degree in economics from Manchester university.

  Mr. Pennant-Rea is an experienced economist who has managed a leading international economics newspaper. From 1977 to 1986, he was a journalist on The Economist. This included spells on secondment to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development as editor of "World Development Report". From 1986 until 1993 he was the editor of "The Economist" and a director of The Economist Newspaper Group Inc.

  Mr. Pennant-Rea was appointed Deputy Governor on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. As with all appointments at this level, it was made following wide consultation.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established, and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17452]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: No specific public information telephone inquiry lines operate in the Treasury. Calls are handled by the public inquiry room or the press office as appropriate.

  VAT (Services)
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to the fixing of different VAT thresholds for businesses supplying services as opposed to those supplying goods; and if he will make a statement. [17696]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The application of different thresholds for businesses supplying services as opposed to businesses supplying goods has been considered on a number of occasions. Where mixed supplies are involved the introduction of different thresholds would create significant operational problems and therefore the preferred option is to maintain the simplicity of a single threshold.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) of
  1013
  3 November 1994, Official Report, columns 1283–84 on the tax liabilities of taxpayers in different income bands, giving figures for 1995–96 and estimates for 1996–97 based on the assumption of statutory indexation and including measures announced in the 1994 budget. [15677]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: I regret that the earlier reply contained an incorrect table for 1995–96. An updated version of this table is as follows. The 1987–88 income tax regime has been indexed to 1995–96 levels by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for the effect of independent taxation of husbands and wives. Average earnings have increased by nearly 15 per cent. in real terms since 1987–88. Etimates for 1996–97 are not available.

  Average reduction or increase (-) in 1995–96 compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1995–96 (£)

  Income Tax (£)

  Income Tax and National Insurance
  (£)

  Under 5,000

  50

  60

  5,000 to 10,000

  140

  180

  10,000 to 15,000

  150

  220

  15,000 to 20,000

  160

  180

  20,000 to 25,000

  210

  180

  25,000 to 30,000

  250

  170

  30,000 to 40,000

  -190

  -280

  40,000 to 50,000

  -180

  -270

  50,000 to 70,000

  1,040

  940

  70,000 to 80,000

  3,440

  3,330

  Over 80,000

  17,300

  17,200

  Average

  280

  290

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesian Police
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 84, on what date he asked for assurances prior to scholarship awards being granted to officers of the Indonesian police force that none of those officers had previously served in East Timor. [16661]

  Mr. Baldry
  No assurances were sought.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 367, regarding his Department's funding of training and scholarship awards for members of the Indonesian police force if the biographical details required by his Department reveal as a matter of routine (i) whether the applicant has ever served in East Timor and (ii) whether the applicant will serve East Timor after training; on which date officials in his Department last conducted an assessment of the work performance of applicants; to what extent this assessment was dependent on information provided by the Indonesian police force; on which date officials in his Department last conducted interviews with applicants prior to their leaving Indonesia to test their suitability to take part in the Indonesian police training project; and what specific questions applicants were asked about their past activities with regard to human rights considerations. [16513]
  1014
  Mr. Baldry
  Candidates for United Kingdom scholarships under the police project submit biographical details which cover their employment history. These would normally but not invariably include the locations in which the officer has served, but would not include the locations of prospective employment once involvement in the project is complete.

  Interviews are conducted by the UK project consultants at the outset when applicants join the consultancy unit. Their approach to policing and commitment to public service is assessed. Candidates for UK training are subsequently and independently re-assessed by the consultants in further interviews on the basis of work performance. The last date that this was done was during the visit by the UK consultants between 8 and 28 January 1995.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 84, if the commitment given by the Indonesian police force to his Department that officers who receive scholarship awards under the police project will remain with the project for a minimum of five years includes the assurance (a) that no such officer will be eligible to serve in East Timor during that time and (b) that no such officer will be eligible to serve in East Timor after their five years in the project is complete. [16663]

  Mr. Baldry
  It does not.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 111, what sources other than the Indonesian national police force have provided information that no officer who has received any form of training paid for or provided with assistance from his Department has subsequently gone on to serve in East Timor either during that period of training or after it has concluded. [16509]

  Mr. Baldry
  The project managers have also provided this information about trainees financed under the police project.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March, column 85, if the biographical material provided to his Department about Indonesian police officers who have received scholarship awards or other training paid for by his Department reveal the dates when officers served in East Timor; and if they were based within that country. [16662]

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is no longer available.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 85, what sources other than the Indonesian national police force provided information to the United Kingdom managers of the Indonesian national police project that Indonesian police officers who have received scholarships or training paid for by his Department have not subsequently served in East Timor. [16660]

  Mr. Baldry
  From their own knowledge of the project and the trainees, the UK managers of the police project were able independently to confirm this information about trainees financed under the police project.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth about actions that should be taken to improve the situation in Sierra Leone. [17821]

  Mr. Baldry
  While we have received no representations, we are in regular contact with the Commonwealth Secretariat and strongly support the efforts of Chief Anyaoku to encourage peace talks between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what joint discussions have taken place with other European Governments about action that should be taken to improve the situation in Sierra Leone. [17823]

  Mr. Baldry
  We keep in close and regular contact with our EU partners about developments in Sierra Leone. EU aid to Sierra Leone covers a wide range of humanitarian and development projects. In addition 15 million ECU has been allocated so far this year for democratisation, rehabilitation of war-affected areas, and demobilisation of soldiers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations he has received from the UN Secretary-General about action that should be taken to improve the situation in Sierra Leone. [17822]

  Mr. Baldry
  While we have received no recommendations, we are in regular contact with the UN Secretariat to discuss the situation in Sierra Leone. We are also providing some logistical support for the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Freetown.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensue that(a) British aid for Sri Lanka designated for the north and the east of the island is able to get through; and (b) aid is used for the rehabilitation of refugees and repair of the infrastructure. [16755]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: UK aid for the north and east is being delivered as intended. A consignment of medical equipment was delivered to Jaffna hospital at the end of last year and equipment for the University of Jaffna is due to arrive there this week. UK support for the relief and rehabilitation of displaced communities from the north and east is managed by Oxfam and the Save the Children fund using local Sri Lankan non-governmental organisations. Contributions have additionally been made through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Government of Sri Lanka about the restoration of transport systems, gas and electricity supplies for the whole country and about the lifting of the economic embargo by the Sri Lankans on food and medicines. [16756]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, was briefed on the peace process, including relief measures for the people of
  1016
  Jaffna, by President Kumaratunga when she visited London in March. Many items have been removed from the embargo list. Food and medicines are not on the list. We have said that the British Government could offer consultancy assistance regarding power reconstruction requirements for Jaffna to help identify the scope of work likely to be necessary.

  European Development Fund
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Foreign Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 March in relation to the size of the eighth European development fund for 1995 to 2000. [18212]

  Mr. Baldry
  EU Foreign Ministers had a short discussion on 18 and 19 March on the size of the eighth European development fund, but reached no decision. There will be further discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council on 10–11 April.

  Nuclear Reactor, Slovakia
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government has made of whether the European bank for reconstruction and development has established that detailed and satisfactory plans have been made for the safe storage of radioactive waste produced during the proposed operation of the nuclear power plant at Mochovce, Slovakia. [16108]

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank's project documentation indicates that adequate technical, environmental and financial provision has been made for the short and medium-term safe storage of spent fuel and other radioactive wastes. The Slovak Government are considering plans for final storage facilities, provision of which would be covenanted in a project agreement between the bank and Slovenske Elektrarne, the Slovak power utility.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's position on the projections for gas prices, decommissioning costs, discount rates and variable currency exchange rates for Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia contained in the least cost study prepared for the European bank for reconstruction and development's directors. [16109]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are examining the least cost study and comments made on it by a number of organisations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the recurring problems relating to fire protection and essential operational, emergency and control systems associated with Soviet VVER-440/213 nuclear reactor design can be resolved by superimposing other technologies as proposed for the completion of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia. [16110]

  Mr. Baldry
  The safety review of the Mochovce plant undertaken by Riskaudit examined these aspects and made recommendations for their improvement. It confirmed that the standards applied for the management and operation of the plant are fully in line with the fundamental principles set out in relevant International Atomic Energy Agency documents. It also confirmed that the proposed project safety measures, including the recommendations
  1017
  included in the safety review, would make the Mochovce plant acceptable under good western practices.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to whether the specification for the proposed Mochovce nuclear plant would satisfy the environmental and safety standards required for equivalent plant operating in the United Kingdom. [16111]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 21 February at column 130.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions the Government's review of its policy on the European bank for reconstruction and development's proposed funding for the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia, has reached; and what assessment he has made as to whether the completion of the plant or alternative supply and demand-side measures represent the least cost option. [16112]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not yet finalised our position on this project.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Patrol Vehicles (Accidents)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents involving police patrol vehicles have been reported to the Metropolitan police for each year since 1991; and how many people have sustained injuries as a result. [16408]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner that the following is the information requested.

  Year

  Number of accidents

  Number of injuries

  1991

  4,150

  1,037 (366)

  1992

  4,143

  1,028 (710)

  1993

  4,246

  1,203 (831)

  1994

  4,063

  1,179 (855)

  The figures shown in parenthesis in the last column are the numbers of civilians injured; the remainder of the total in each case are police officers.

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who are currently imprisoned have their babies with them in prison. [18007]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many women who are currently imprisoned have their babies with them in prison.
  On 31 March 1994 51 women had their babies with them in the three prison mother and baby units.
  1018
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the rules applying at Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton allow prisoners and relatives to talk in(a) Irish and (b) their first language; [17663]

  (2) what rules apply in Her Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom about prisoners, whose first language is not English, being allowed to converse in their first language with visitors. [17666]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Max Madden, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the rules which apply to prisoners, whose first language is not English, being allowed to converse in their first language with visitors and if the rules applying at Full Sutton Prison allow prisoners and relatives to talk in Irish and their first language.
  Under the provisions of Prison Service Standing Order 5, which applies to all prisons in England and Wales, prisoners and their visitors may speak in the language of their choice. If it is necessary to do so for security reasons, the Standing Order provides either for communication to be in English or for an interpreter to be present or for communications to be tape recorded.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor complaining about verbal and physical abuse. [17664]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Max Madden, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about complaints made by prisoners of physical and verbal abuse.
  Prisoners make allegations about verbal or physical abuse from time to time in many prison establishments. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the allegations these are investigated either by the police or internally within the Prison Service, and where they are substantiated, appropriate action is taken.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 15 March,Official Report, column 573, in which adult female Prison Service establishment the females under 18 years of age were being held. [18003]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question (following my answer to the honourable member for Nottingham South of 15 March, Official Report, column 573) in which adult female Prison Service establishments the females under 18 years of age were being held.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.
  1019

  Females aged under 18 years held in adult female establishments on 31 January 1995, by Prison Service establishment

  Establishment

  Number

  Remand

  Holloway

  5

  Low Newton

  3

  New Hall

  2

  Pucklechurch

  2

  Risley

  2

  Sentenced

  Askham Grange

  1

  Holloway

  5

  Low Newton

  5

  New Hall

  3

  Pucklechurch

  1

  All establishments

  29

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are currently imprisoned in British prison service establishments. [18032]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: 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 front Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many (a) women and (b) men are currently imprisoned in British prison service establishments.
  On 24 March 1995 there were 57,254 persons (55,068 men and 2,186 women) in prison establishments in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men served custodial sentences in each year since 1989, broken down by type of offence committed. [17207]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 he given.

  Letter horn Derek Lewis to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many men served custodial sentences in each year since 1989. broken down by type of offence committed.
  Information for 1989 to 1992 is published in Prison Statistics England and Wales [Cm 2581. Tables 3.7 (young offenders) and 4.9 (adults) of the 1992 edition) a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Provisional information for 1993 and 1994 is contained in the attached table.

  Number of men received into Prison Service custody for immediate custodial sentences in 1993 and 1994, by type of offence1

  Offence group

  1993

  1994

  Violence against the person

  7,213

  8,275

  Sexual offences

  1,882

  1,888

  Burglary

  9,441

  10,624

  Robbery

  3,067

  2,800

  Theft and handling

  8,314

  10,098

  Fraud and forgery

  1,573

  1,794

  Drugs offences

  2,890

  3,091

  Other offences

  11,879

  15,605

  Offence not recorded

  3,445

  4,131

  All offences

  49,704

  58,306

  1 Excluding fine defaulters.

  Child Prostitutes (Bosnia)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to make it a criminal offence for citizens of the United Kingdom to make use of child prostitutes in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [17695]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Government condemn the sexual exploitation and abuse of children wherever it occurs. There would, however, be considerable practical difficulties in implementing any system of extended jurisdiction over such offences.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion his department has had with the Department of Transport on extending the powers and jurisdiction of the British Transport police and if he will make a statement. [17470]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994 confines the jurisdiction of the British Transport police to railway property or to railway matters. During the passage of the legislation, an undertaking was given that officials from the Department of Transport and the Home Office would look again at this issue. This is being pursued.

  Irish Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what obstacles there are preventing Irish nationals, convicted to serve custodial sentences in United Kingdom prisons, from being transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic; how many such prisoners there are in Her Majesty's prisons in Britain; how many have been transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic since 1 September 1994; and if he will make a statement. [17662]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: There are 703 prisoners currently imprisoned in England and Wales who gave their nationality on reception into prison as Irish. The transfer of prisoners between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is not possible. The United Kingdom ratified the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons in 1985. The Republic of Ireland is a signatory to the convention but has yet to ratify it.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15566]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I am the Minister responsible for deregulation in the Home Office, and as such ensure that progress is maintained on deregulation. In the last 12 months, changes have been made to legislation affecting shopping hours, liquor licensing, charities, and betting and gaming and further changes are planned.

  Against this background, the Department's planning systems give proper prominence to our deregulation programme.

  Turkish Asylum Applicants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total numbers of asylum applications received from Turkish nationals for each of the last 24 months; and what was the outcome of these applications. [18306]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information on asylum applications by Turkish nationals and on decisions made, for the last 24 months, is given in the table.

  Decisions on applications for asylum(1) received from nationals of Turkey in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, March 1993 to February 1995

  number of principal applicants

  Applications2

  Total decisions2 3

  Granted asylum

  Granted ELR4

  Refused5

  1993

  March

  130

  255

  60

  150

  45

  April

  105

  210

  50

  115

  45

  May

  150

  130

  15

  55

  60

  June

  125

  160

  30

  65

  60

  July(6)

  125

  100

  20

  35

  45

  August

  85

  70

  15

  5

  55

  September

  115

  80

  10

  *

  70

  October

  105

  60

  5

  5

  50

  November

  115

  105

  25

  15

  65

  December

  135

  105

  10

  0

  95

  1994

  January

  175

  95

  15

  15

  65

  February

  120

  135

  25

  10

  95

  March

  160

  95

  15

  5

  75

  April

  205

  100

  5

  *

  95

  May

  190

  90

  5

  *

  85

  June

  185

  90

  5

  *

  85

  July

  155

  95

  10

  *

  85

  August

  165

  115

  5

  *

  110

  September

  165

  80

  5

  5

  70

  October

  220

  90

  5

  10

  75

  November

  180

  95

  0

  *

  95

  December

  125

  70

  5

  *

  65

  1995

  January

  100

  110

  5

  5

  100

  February

  165

  80

  *

  0

  80

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5 Refusals include those made after full consideration, refusals under para 180F for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, and refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a sate third country.

  6 The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force on 26 July 1993.

  Passport Requirements (Ireland)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to review the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic with a view to requiring those travelling between both countries to show their passports; and if he will make a statement. [18423]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have no plans to review the operation of the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
  1022
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to require those travelling between Britain and Northern Ireland to show their passports; and if he will make a statement. [18424]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic about the effects on the future of the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic following the Republic signing the Schengen agreement; and if he will make a statement. [18422]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. The Republic of Ireland is not a signatory to the Schengen agreement.

  Prison Rules
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on his proposed changes to the prison rules. [18767]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today tabled amendments to the prison and young offender rules which, subject to the negative resolution procedure, will come into force in 21 days.

  The amendments cover three areas: governors' disciplinary powers; the arrangements for the temporary release of prisoners; and contact between convicted and unconvicted prisoners.

  The amendments will increase by 50 per cent. the maximum level of all governors' disciplinary punishments for prisoners, except for the maximum period of cellular confinement, which was increased from three to 14 days in 1994. The new maximum punishments with figures for young offenders in brackets where different, will be:

  Present

  Proposed

  Additional days

  28

  42

  Cellular confinement (days)

  14 [7]

  no change

  Stoppage of earnings (days' earnings)

  28 [14]

  42 [21]

  Forfeiture of privileges (days)

  28 [14]

  42 [21]

  Exclusion from associated work or activity (days)

  14

  21

  Extra work—young offenders and adult females only (days)

  14

  21

  Removal from wing—young offenders only (days)

  14

  21

  These increases will act as a greater deterrent to prisoners; allow governors to punish the more serious offences properly; reduce the number of cases which need to be referred to the police; and maintain confidence in the disciplinary system.

  The amendments will also introduce new criteria under which prisoners may be released temporarily. Under the new rules those prisoners who are eligible may be temporarily released only in the following circumstances:

  (i) on specified compassionate grounds (compassionate licence);

  (ii) to enable prisoners to undertake education, training or work experience and for specific official purposes, such as to appear as police witnesses (facility licence);

  (iii) to allow prisoners who are near the end of their sentence to maintain their family ties and to re-integrate into the community (resettlement licence).

  1023
  The new rules will also ensure that prisoners are not released too early in their sentence nor too frequently. In order to protect the safety of the public, governors will undertake in each case a rigorous risk assessment before deciding whether to release a prisoner temporarily. Eligible prisoners will be released only if the governor is satisfied that they will comply with the conditions of their licence.

  Transitional arrangements have been made for some categories of prisoners. For example, those who have already successfully completed periods of home leave, and who are within a year of eligibility for parole, will continue to be eligible for resettlement licence. Prisoners who have been granted temporary release for work, education and training courses will generally continue to be eligible for facility licence to continue their courses, provided that the courses cannot be provided within the prison.

  The amendments will also relax the current restriction on contact between convicted and unconvicted prisoners, which will allow accommodation and regime facilities to be used more flexibility.

  Crime Prevention Schemes (Wales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on crime prevention schemes by his Department in Wales last year. [17972]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Merthyr Tydfil safer cities project supported 29 crime prevention schemes during 1994–95 with £100,000 of Home Office grant funding. This figure does not include the contractor's costs for managing the project.

  Police Establishment (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received over police establishment levels in Gloucestershire. [17645]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no specific representations about Gloucestershire's approved establishment. Since the beginning of the year, correspondence about policing levels has been received from one hon. member and five members of the public.

  Licensed Premises
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish regulations relating to trading on Sundays in licensed premises holding off-licences. [17485]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill will amend the licensing law in England and Wales to permit the sale of alcohol at off-licensed premises from 10am to 10.30pm on Sundays. Large shops with off-licences, which are subject to limits on their hours of trading under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, will be entitled to sell alcohol throughout the time the 1994 Act permits them to open. We do not at present plan to publish any special regulations for businesses whose trade and customers will benefit from the Bill.

  Housing Benefit (Prisoners)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security about his plan to reduce housing benefit to prisoners and on how this would affect the number of offences committed by these individuals. [17504]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposal has been the subject of routine exchanges between Ministers and officials of the two Departments about its implementation.

  Gloucestershire Fire Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received over the standard spending assessment settlement for the Gloucestershire Fire Authority; and if he will list them. [17647]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from an hon. Member enclosing one from a constituent who was concerned about provision for the fire service in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the numbers of jobs which will be lost in(a) the Gloucestershire fire brigade and (b) the Gloucestershire police as a result of the funding formula. [17648]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend is unable to make any such estimate. Any fire authority wishing to reduce the operational capability of its brigade, including the number of firefighting posts, must seek his approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947; but no such request for approval has been received. The Secretary of State's practice is to grant approval only where he is satisfied that the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover will be maintained. So far as the Gloucestershire police are concerned, with the abolition of police force establishment controls from 31 March 1995, responsibility for staffing matters such as these has been devolved to chief constables.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has supporting the Government's proposals advanced in the Green Paper on the nature of community sentences; when the White Paper on this subject will be published; and if he will take into account evidence and recommendations from the probation service in this report. [17502]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Under the current legislation, the courts are able to choose from a limited range of community orders when determining a community sentence. A new integrated sentence would give clear practical benefits to the courts, including greater choice and flexibility in the type of punishment served, better matched to the circumstances of the individual offence or offences, as well as more say in the way these punishments are carried out.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to publish a White Paper, but will consider carefully the results of the public consultation, including any comments from the probation service.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of crimes committed in each year since 1989(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of crime recorded for each of those years; [17226]

  (2) how many of the offences estimated by his Department to have been committed in 1993 were recorded. [17227]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on crimes committed can be obtained from the British crime survey—BCS—but only for the years 1981, 1983, 1987, 1991 and 1993. A comparison of BCS figures of offences committed in these years with statistics of crimes recorded by the police, can be made only for offences against individuals and their property. These figures are contained in the table:

  Comparison of British Crime Survey and notifiable offences recorded by the police

  Year

  Crimes committed (BCS estimates) (thousands)

  Crimes recorded by the police (thousands)

  Percentage recorded of committed

  1981

  6,538

  1,466

  22

  1983

  7,187

  1,639

  23

  1987

  8,499

  2,070

  24

  1991

  9,763

  2,897

  30

  1993

  11,567

  3,090

  27

  Note:

  Offences included are: Acquisitive crime: burglary, theft of and from vehicles (including attempts), bicycle thefts, thefts from the person. Vandalism: household property and vehicles. Violence: wounding and robbery.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the criminal injuries compensation board used Mr. Richard Beattie to carry out psychological assessments on its behalf in the last five years; and how much the board paid for Mr. Beattie's work. [17268]

  Mr. Maclean
  Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have joint responsibility for oversight of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the day-to-day administration of the scheme and the handling of individual cases is a matter for the board itself, to which the hon. Member should direct his inquiries.

  Immigration
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals, by nationality, have been(a) apprehended and (b) subsequently debarred from entry to the United Kingdom on board Eurostar trains since the inception of channel tunnel services. [17012]
  1026
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Between November 1994 and 30 March 1995, 378 persons have been required to submit to further examination. Their apparent country of origin was as follows:

  Albania: 2

  Algeria: 16

  Australia: 4

  Bangladesh: 3

  Belgium: 1

  Benin: 1

  Botswana: 1

  Brazil: 8

  British overseas national: 1

  British overseas citizen: 1

  Bulgaria: 4

  Cameroon: 2

  Canada: 1

  China: 4

  Colombia: 6

  Costa Rica: 1

  Ivory Coast: 8

  Czech Republic: 3

  Czechoslovakia: 2

  Ecuador: 4

  Egypt: 2

  Eritrea: 1

  France: 6

  Ghana: 1

  Haiti: 1

  Hungary: 5

  Indonesia: I

  Iran: 3

  Iraq: 1

  Israel: 2

  Italy: 2

  Jordan: 1

  Japan: 11

  Kazakhstan: 3

  Korea: 2

  Laos: 1

  Lebanon: 2

  Liberia: 1

  Malaysia: 5

  Mauritius: 1

  Mexico: 3

  Morocco: 4

  Netherlands: 2

  Nigeria: 2

  Pakistan: 2

  Poland: 30

  Portugal: 1

  Romania: 8

  Russia: 6

  Rwanda: 1

  Senegal: 1

  Singapore: 1

  Slovakia: 1

  Slovenia: 1

  Somalia: 2

  South Africa: 2

  Sri Lanka: 4

  Switzerland: 2

  Togo: 1

  Tunisia: 3

  Turkey: 2

  USA: 14

  1027

  Venezuela: 1

  Yugoslavia: 27

  Zaire: 4

  Nationality doubtful: 130

  Of these, 237 have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom. The nationalities of those refused leave are as follows:

  Albanian: 2

  Algerian: 11

  Australian: 1

  Bangladeshi: 3

  Benin: 1

  Brazilian: 5

  British Overseas Nationals: 1

  British Overseas Citizens: 1

  Bulgarian: 2

  Cameroonian: 1

  Chinese: 6

  Colombian: 2

  Czech: 3

  Ecuadorian: 4

  Egyptian: 2

  Ghanaian: 1

  Hungarian: 3

  Indonesian: 1

  Iranian: 2

  Iraqi: 1

  Ivory Coast: 8

  Japanese: 1

  Jordanian: 1

  Lebanese: 1

  Liberian: 1

  Malaysian: 3

  Moroccan: 4

  Nigerian: 2

  Pakistani: 1

  Polish: 21

  Romanian: 7

  Russian: 4

  Rwandan: 1

  Slovenian: 1

  Somalian: 1

  South African: 1

  South Korean: 1

  Sri Lankan: 3

  Stateless: 22

  Togo: 1

  Tunisian: 3

  Turkish: 1

  USA: 6

  Yugoslavian: 20

  Zairean: 4

  Nationality Doubtful: 65

  Overseas Prisons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list visits he has made to prison establishments in other countries since his appointment as Home Secretary; what was the duration of these visits; and if he will make a statement on the discussions he had with the prison authorities at each of these prisons. [16762]
  1028
  Mr. Howard
  During a visit to the United States in January this year I visited the following establishments:

  Date

  Establishment

  2 January 1995

  (0930–1115)

  Hernando County Jail, Brookeville, Florida

  4 January 1995

  (0830–1030)

  Lockhart Work Programme Facility, Texas

  4 January 1995

  (1100–1330)

  Kyle Pre-lease Centre, Texas

  5 January 1995

  (1000–1030)

  Harris County Sheriff's Department Boot Camp

  It is not my practice to disclose details of discussions I may have had.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries relating to prisons in the last three years. [16764]

  Mr. Howard
  It is not usual practice to disclose details of discussions of this kind.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits abroad each Secretary of State has made in each year since 1990. [16765]

  Mr. Howard
  In so far as central records are held, they show the following:

  Visits

  1990:

  Mr. Waddington

  4

  1991:

  Mr. Baker

  10

  1992:

  Mr. Baker

  1

  Mr. Clarke

  4

  1993:

  Mr. Clarke

  2

  Mr. Howard

  2

  1994:

  Mr. Howard

  6

  1995:

  Mr. Howard

  1

SCOTLAND

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow the shadow unitary authorities in Strathclyde a say in the duration and value of any contracts awarded after 6 April by Strathclyde passenger transport executive. [15858]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Strathclyde passenger transport executive contracts of £75,000 or more are referred automatically to Strathclyde regional council. Any such contracts falling within the conditions
  1029
  laid down by section 55 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 will be subject to the consent procedures involving successor authorities set out there.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current salaries of the principals of Scotland's further education colleges; and what they were at the moment of incorporation following the transfer of control from the local authorities. [17071]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on salaries paid to college principals at the time of incorporation on 1 April 1993 is not held centrally; further education college audited accounts for 1993–94 did not require to include information about the salaries of principals. With effect from the 1994–95 financial year, further education college boards of management will be required to indicate in a consistent manner in their annual accounts the total emoluments of principals. The audited accounts, which are public documents, are due to be submitted to the Scottish Office Education Department by 30 September 1995.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a further education funding council. [17072]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a further education funding council.

  Forestry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra money will be made available to fund grant aid for forestry on land which is to count against a farmer's set-aside obligations. [17077]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The increased funding announced in the Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 199798—Cm 2814—is expected to be sufficient to meet all applications for grant-aid for forestry, including those for land which is to count against a farmer's set-aside obligations.

  Child Care
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the child care or nursery facilities within his Department; and what is the breakdown in their use(a) by grade and (b) by gender. [15237]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: My Department operates an on-site nursery at East Craigs, Edinburgh, which is licensed for 15 full-time equivalent places. A total of 17 staff use the facility—12 female and five male. The grade breakdown is as follows:

  Grade equivalent

  Number

  7

  2

  SEO

  1

  HEO

  2

  EO

  6

  AO

  5

  AA

  1

  Total

  17

  1030
  A further 30 to 35 place nursery is due to open at Victoria quay, Edinburgh in autumn 1995. In addition, my staff have access to a holiday play scheme operated by Customs and Excise in Edinburgh.

  Borders College
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to(a) receive and (b) act upon the report from the chairman of the board of his inquiry held in January into staff discontent at Borders college. [17410]

  Mr. Lang
  The board of management of Borders college has carried out a review into matters of concern raised by lecturers' unions and a report has been submitted to the Scottish Office Education Department. Discussions between my officials and the chairman of the board of management and the college principal have taken place. Further investigations are under way. I will write to the right hon. Member when these are completed.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Scottish Homes supplied the names and addresses of its tenants in the north of Glasgow to Gemini Housing Association; and if the names and addresses were drawn from a computer database. [18065]

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

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when and at what charge Scottish Homes supplied Gemini Housing Association with computer printed labels run of names and addresses of Scottish Homes tenants living in the north end of Glasgow; [18220]

  (2) in what circumstances Scottish Homes gives computer data information to organisations other than registered housing associations; [18221]

  (3) if Scottish Homes stores the names and addresses of its tenants on computer; [18222]

  (4) on how many occasions in 1994 Scottish Homes supplied the names and addresses of all the tenants in the north of Glasgow to organisations other than registered housing associations. [18219]

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

  Speech and Language Disorders
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been diagnosed as having a specific speech or language disorder as a primary handicap, in each Scottish region and islands area; what number of these children from each region or island area are educated outwith their own region and, of these, how many are educated in England; what schools are attended by children with specific speech or language disorders who are educated within their own region and what is the annual cost per pupil; and of these children, identified with a specific speech or language disorder as a principal handicap, how many are recorded, in each region and islands area. [17877]
  1031
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested. The available information is given in the table.

  Number of pupils in Scottish schools whose main difficulty in learning is a communication disorder as at September 1993

  Education authority:

  Grant-aided

  Independent schools

  Pupils in special schools

  Recorded pupils in mainstream primary and secondary schools

  Pupils in special schools

  Pupils

  Scotland

  1353 (209)

  363

  8

  267

  Borders

  5 (3)

  7

  0

  Central

  7 (7)

  43

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1(1)

  18

  0

  Fife

  16(2)

  2

  0

  Grampian

  61 (24)

  27

  0

  Highland

  17 (17)

  35

  0

  Lothian

  57 (13)

  24

  4

  Strathclyde

  157 (122)

  179

  4

  Tayside

  31 (19)

  25

  0

  Orkney

  1 (1)

  1

  0

  Shetland

  0 (0)

  1

  0

  Western Isles

  0 (0)

  1

  0

  Strathclyde divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  1 (1)

  3

  0

  Ayr

  33 (27)

  47

  0

  Dumbarton

  4 (0)

  24

  0

  Glasgow

  86 (62)

  41

  4

  Lanark

  26 (15)

  27

  0

  Renfrew

  7 (7)

  37

  0

  1 Figures in brackets give the number of pupils in Special Schools who have a Record of Needs.

  2 This figure cannot be broken down by Region.

  £ million

  Property proceeds

  Grant-in-aid

  Gross provision

  (Rental)

  (Disposal)

  Receipts from European Social Fund for Government training programmes

  1991–92

  379.3

  446.4

  7.7

  10.5

  18.1

  1992–93

  375.6

  449.1

  9.0

  7.0

  22.8

  1993–94

  378.8

  451.4

  11.9

  15.2

  23.3

  1994–95 (estimate)

  432.7

  467.1

  8.5

  21.0

  23.3

  1995–96 (provisional estimate)

  436.3

  471.7

  10.3

  20.1

  29.5

  1996–97 (plans)

  n/a

  472.2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1997–98 (plans)

  n/a

  472.7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scottish Enterprise came into operation on 1 April 1991. Details of its budget after 1995–96 will be addressed in future public expenditure surveys.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority employees he estimates will be offered three years' protection of salary before being downgraded as a result of being offered lower-paid jobs in the new unitary authorities. [17901]

  Mr. Kynoch
  We have not made any estimate, as the number will depend on decisions taken by the new councils once they have determined their staffing structures.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what area of Scotland is designated as being environmentally sensitive; how much Government funding is spent annually on environmentally sensitive areas; how this formula is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [17795]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: There are 10 environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland covering over 1.4 million hectares, about 20 per cent. of the land area. Expenditure in 1993–94 was £0.963 million and planned provision will rise to £9.2 million in 1997–98. Payments are calculated on the basis of estimated average income losses and additional costs resulting from compliance with the scheme requirements and may also take account of the need to provide an incentive. Sufficient resources have been allocated to allow eligible farmers and crofters in the designated areas to participate in the scheme.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for every financial year since 1988–89 and the plans until 1997–98 for(a) the amount of the Scottish Office grant in aid to Scottish Enterprise, (b) the amount raised internally by rental and sale of its property, (c) the total revenue received in grants for the European Community and (d) the total budget. [17699]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is given in the table:

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the future administration of the European social fund in Scotland, and if he will make a statement. [18693]

  Mr. Lang
  I took the responsibility last year for European social fund expenditure under objectives 1, 2 and 5b for the new programming period which started on 1 January 1994. I have now agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that I should assume responsibility for the administration of all European social fund expenditure in Scotland.

  As regards the Great Britain objective 3 programme, the Scottish Office will be responsible for all relevant projects which commenced from 1 January 1995 onwards. On the same basis, my Department will also be

  1033
  responsible in Scotland for all Community initiatives involving ESF support, including ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT.

  To this end, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend that these arrangements should be implemented from 1 April 1995 and the relevant administrative and financial changes are being put in place on that basis.

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1995–96. [18694]

  Mr. Lang
  For the financial year 1995–96 I have set the following targets:

  Aerial surveillance—per cent of hours flown on task: 85%

  Aerial surveillance—cost per aircraft sighting: £86

  Marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea: 2,800

  Marine surveillance—cost per boarding: £2,400

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate—cost per logsheet check: £67

  75 per cent. of cases for prosecution to be reported within 6 weeks of offence being detected and 90 per cent. within 8 weeks

  Number of cases where court proceeding are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities: 75%

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash-releasing efficiency gains of 2 per cent. over 1995–96.

  The chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's annual report.

HEALTH

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the practice of mixed-sex wards will be abandoned by the national health service. [15515]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for trusts and health authorities to decide for themselves how to use the resources available to them. However, we have recognised the problem and recently issued a revised and expanded patients charter which gives patients the right to be told, before they go into hospital, whether it is planned to care for them in a ward for men and women. In such cases they will be told how their dignity and privacy will be protected. In all cases they can expect single-sex washing and toilet facilities. If patients prefer to be cared for in single-sex accommodation—either a single-sex ward or a "bay" within a larger ward which offers equal privacy—their wishes will be respected wherever possible.

  There may be some cases, particularly emergencies, where a hospital cannot provide single-sex accommodation. This is most likely to arise if a patient needs to be looked after by a specialist nurse in an intensive care ward or in an observation unit, It is also possible that single-sex accommodation may not be available at the time proposed for the patient's admission. If this is the case, the patient can choose between accepting immediate admission or waiting for single-sex accommodation to become available.
  1034
  There is a difference between a mixed-sex ward, consisting of a number of single-sex bays with four to six patients in them, and a "Nightingale" type ward, which is suitable only for single-sex accommodation. We are phasing out these "Nightingale" wards and no new ones are being commissioned.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was saved by fundholders in each year since 1990 in each regional health authority area; and how much of this money was invested into the general practitioners' premises. [16092]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 November 1994 at columns 321–22 and on 14 March at column 545.

  Information on how general practitioner fundholders spend savings is available from regional health authorities, which are responsible for managing the fundholding scheme in their area.

  Estranged Children
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received about 16 and 17-year-olds who contact social services claiming to be estranged from their parents; [16885]

  (2) what representations she has received from parents of 16 and 17-year-olds who claim to social services that they are estranged from their parents; and if she will make a statement; [16884]

  (3) what assessment she has made of whether the Children Act 1989 gives parents sufficient rights when 16 and 17-year-olds inform social services departments that they wish to leave home claiming estrangement; [16882]

  (4) what rights parents have if a 16 or 17-year-old child seeks assistance from social services claiming estrangement from their parents; [16883]

  (5) if she will issue new guidelines to social service departments dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds who claim to be estranged from their parents. [16881]

  Mr. Bowis
  Over the last 12 months the Department of Health has records of five representations from parents about the estrangement of their 16 or 17-year-old children. The Children Act 1989 requires authorities, so far as reasonably practicable, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of parents. Parents have a right to make representations or complaints and the authority must respond to these. If parents remain dissatisfied they have recourse to the local government ombudsman, who can investigate complaints of local government maladministration. Ultimately, parents could seek judicial review if they consider the authority has failed in its duties. Local authorities are expected to promote or maintain contact between the child and the parents wherever possible and to provide advice and counselling so that families can overcome identified difficulties. Guidance is contained in volume 2 of the "Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations". I have no current plans to amend this.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 March,Official Report,

  1035
  column 700, to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, if she will initiate inquiries into the practice of consultants refusing, as a direct result of the patients charter, to accept on to their waiting lists patients referred by general practitioners for non-urgent operations on the basis that this would extend the waiting lists beyond Government guidelines of acceptability. [17076]

  Mr. Malone
  No. Decisions on when patients are treated must be made by the doctors involved in the patient's care and must be based on their assessment of the patient's clinical needs and priority.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by her Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are her latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17633]

  Mr. Sackville
  The breakdown of expenditure for 1992–93 to 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  £ Million

  Financial year

  Media

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (estimated)

  TV

  2.773

  1.793

  1.582

  Radio

  0.020

  0.492

  0.951

  Newspaper

  1.976

  2.504

  0.904

  Other

  0.285

  1.020

  1.024

  Recruitment

  0.012

  0.009

  10.137

  1 Includes health service professions recruitment. Budgets for 1995–96 have not yet been agreed.

  Expenditure covers a wide range of publicity campaigns relating to legislation, policy, patient's rights and other health advice.

  Poisons Unit
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what criteria projects are chosen by the national poisons unit; [18024]

  (2) if she will list those projects undertaken by the national poisons unit which are directly linked to grants; [18025]

  (3) if she will list by source and value the grant income of the national poisons unit. [18023]

  Mr. Sackville
  Management of the poisons unit at New Cross, London, is the responsibility of the Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executive of the trust, Mr. Tim Matthews, for details of projects undertaken at the unit.

  In 1994–95, the Department provided £672,000 to the trust in respect of the poisons unit's ongoing contribution to the work of the national poisons information service.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the aims and conclusions of the surveillance of traditional remedies by the national poisons unit: [18026]
  1036
  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the number of deaths or serious injuries caused by traditional remedies. [18027]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has funded surveillance by the poisons unit at Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust of possible toxic effects of traditional herbal remedies. These reports have been considered by both the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Food Advisory Committee. Both committees accepted that clinical evidence gave cause for concern about the safety of some of these products and recommended that further consideration should be given to the action which might be appropriate. Officials in the Department of Health and in the Ministry are taking this forward.

  The Medicines Control Agency has a well developed system for monitoring adverse effects of all licensed medicines, including traditional remedies when they are licensed. All safety hazards which arise are promptly investigated and where necessary action is taken to minimise the risks.

  Blood Services
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled due to a lack of blood supplies since March 1994. [18016]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who sanctioned the change of logo for the National Blood Authority; and if royal approval was(a) required and (b) sought. [18028]

  Mr. Sackville
  The national blood service logo was introduced by the National Blood Authority in April 1994 as one part of the authority's identity and communications review.

  Official advice was that it was not necessary to seek formal permission to remove the crown from the logo.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost(a) per unit and (b) in total of A-positive type blood discarded during (i) 1993 and (ii)
  1994; [18020]

  (2) what is the cost (a) per unit and (b) in total of AB blood discarded during (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994. [18019]

  Mr. Sackville
  The average cost of type AB blood and of type A-positive blood is £35 per unit. The information about blood discarded is not available centrally.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to prevent wastage of stocks of AB type blood. [18018]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the National Blood Authority.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assessment has been made of the decision by the National Blood Authority to collect all clinical fresh frozen plasma by apheresis; and what assessment has been made of the surpluses of plasma this will generate. [18017]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority has made no decisions about collection of fresh frozen plasma for clinical use. The matter is under consideration.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish her Department's report on the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry to the British economy. [17882]

  Mr. Malone
  The joint Government-industry pharmaceutical industry strategy working group has initiated some work on the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry to the United Kingdom economy, and a report is being prepared by the office of health economics, which is part of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she will take to ensure that the nursing profession receive a 3 per cent. pay increase; and if she will make a statement. [17880]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government accepted the recommendation from the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine that there should be a 1 per cent. increase in national salary rates and local negotiations on pay—including, where appropriate, leads and allowances—and/or conditions. The NPRB's expectation that the outcome of local negotiations plus the 1 per cent. increase in national pay should provide improvements for staff totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent. is endorsed by the Government.

  So far, some 60 trusts have signalled their intended approach to pay for their nursing staff. About 70 per cent. of these are proposing to pay an increase of around 3 per cent. The Government expect this trend to continue.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she will take to ensure the independence from Government influence of the Nurses' Pay Review Body; and if she will make a statement. [17867]

  Mr. Malone
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine which was set up in 1983 always has been and continues to be an independent body.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to await the conclusion of an enabling agreement by the Nurses and Midwives Negotiating Council before promoting any local pay settlements for nurses; and if she will make a statement. [17866]

  Mr. Malone
  Trusts already have freedom to negotiate local deals. However, an enabling provision in the national terms and conditions of service will further facilitate local pay bargaining.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis she has carried out comparing the costs of reintroducing NHS eye tests for the elderly with the extra medical and social costs of treating advanced eye disease in the same groups of people. [17988]
  1038
  Mr. Malone
  None. Estimates of the total numbers of sight tests performed in Great Britain since universal eligibility for free national health service sight tests was removed in April 1989 are as follows:

  Millions

  1989–90

  1 310.8

  1990–91

  1 312.41

  1991–92

  2 312.8

  1992–93

  2 314.3

  1993–94

  3 413.2

  1994–95

  3 4 512.7

  1 Figures estimated using Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians data.

  2 Figures estimated by FODO.

  3 These estimates may not be comparable because of different sampling methodologies used.

  4 Figures estimated by the joint—Department of Health and profession—Technical Sub-Committee.

  5 There is no statistically significant change in the estimated volume since 1993–94, which indicates that the volume has remained much the same.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken for the early prevention, detection and treatment of eye problems in the population aged over 65 years. [17987]

  Mr. Malone
  A sight test must by law include a comprehensive eye examination to check for any disease, injury or abnormality which may be present. People aged over 65 are not, as a group, automatically eligible for free national health service sight tests, but provision has been made for people especially at risk from eye disease and those in receipt of income support, family credit and disability working allowance to continue to be entitled to them.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer 28 March,Official Report, column 563, when she intends to publish clinical outcome indicators for NHS trusts in England similar to those published by the Secretary of State for Scotland in December 1994. [17961]

  Mr. Sackville
  The clinical outcome indicators for national health service trusts which were published in Scotland were based on linked patient records. Such linkage is not yet available in England and there are therefore no plans at present to publish such indicators. The programme of developing new outcome indicators is longer term and until the work progresses it will not be possible to give publication dates.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the policy of her Department regarding compensation for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood concentrates. [18039]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have no plans to make payments to haemophilia patients who have been infected with hepatitis C through blood products.
  1039
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 145, when she expects the ad hoc working party of experts to produce guidance on procedures for the look-back exercise for identifying those at risk of hepatitis C. [18581]

  Mr. Sackville
  The guidance, including counselling guidelines and treatment options, is being issued to the national health service under cover of a letter from the Chief Medical Officer. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  This phase of the exercise is to trace, counsel and, where appropriate, treat those identified as being at risk. It will primarily concern hospital consultants in a number of specialties, those working in blood transfusion centres, and general practitioners. We shall do all that we can by way of counselling and, where appropriate, treatment to care for those who may have been infected.

  NHS Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people get full charge remission under the NHS low income scheme. [18232]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available. In 1994–95, 694,135 claims to the national health service low income scheme resulted in entitlement to full charge remission for the claimant and his dependants. In addition, receipt of income support, family credit and, from 1 April 1995, disability working allowance—and capital was £8,000 or less when this benefit was claimed—provides automatic entitlement to full charge remission under the low income scheme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in each year since 1979–80 her Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18520]

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

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many parliamentary questions to her Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18518]

  (2) how many times in each year since 1979–80 her Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18519]

  (3) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by her Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18517]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Patient Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recourse is open to a patient who is aggrieved after the responsible medical officer for complaints has agreed to provide an independent professional review; and if she will make a statement. [18231]

  Mr. Malone
  The independent professional review is carried out by two consultants independent of the hospital involved and the result of their report is final in issues concerning clinical judgement, unless new evidence is brought to light in which case it is for the regional director of public health—or the medical officer for complaints in Wales—to consider what action to take which may include reconvening the IPR. Once the IPR process has reported, the chief executive of the hospital will write to the complainant.

  If the complainant remains dissatisfied then he or she may refer their case to the Health Service Commissioner. However, the HSC may only investigate the process of the handling of the complaint. Under the present system complaints about clinical judgement are outside his jurisdiction. The complainant can also consider approaching the appropriate professional representative body, the General Medical Council, and/or taking legal advice.

  The Department of Health recently published in the document "Acting on Complaints", copies of which have been placed in the Library, proposals for a simpler, speedier and more effective complaints procedure which will cover complaints about clinical judgement. The Government will introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, to extend the jurisdiction of the HSC to cover all national health service complaints including complaints about the exercise of clinical judgement. These plans will be developed in more detail in consultation with the NHS, professional representative bodies and other interested parties in the coming months. The new NHS complaints procedure will be implemented from April 1996.

  Access to Information
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to increase access to information about the national health service. [18762]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall be publishing a code of practice on openness in the national health service on Wednesday 5 April. This fulfils the Government's commitment in the White Paper on Open Government, published in 1993, to increase public access to information about the NHS. This code is the first of its kind in the NHS and, following the codes of conduct and accountability which I published last year, represents a further step towards making the NHS more responsive and accountable to the public it serves. It builds on the success of the patients charter and performance league tables in increasing and improving the information available to members of the public about the NHS.

  The governing principle of this code of practice on openness is that the NHS should respond positively to requests for information. The code sets out clearly for the public what information is available and from whom. It explains how to complain about a refusal to provide information, including referral of such a complaint to the Health Service Commissioner. It also describes good practice in publishing information and in responding to

  1041
  requests for information which is not routinely published. One of the key aims of the code of practice on openness is to foster mutual trust and confidence between the public and the NHS.

  The code of practice is to be implemented by all NHS trusts and authorities on 1 June 1995. My Department will be issuing detailed guidance to assist NHS organisations in the operation of the code.

  Copies of the code will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the report by the Government Actuary on his valuation of the national health service superannuation scheme in England and Wales 1984 to 1989. [18763]

  Mr. Malone
  I have today placed copies of the report in the Library.

  The report concludes that the rate of contribution required from employers to meet the scheme's future liabilities, after taking account of employees' contributions, should remain at 4 per cent. The scheme's liabilities do not include the cost of pensions increase, most of which is currently met by the Exchequer.

  I have decided to accept the Government Actuary's recommendation.

  Waiting Lists, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest estimate of the waiting list for elective surgery at each London district health authority; and what are the available beds in each London district health authority. [18290]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on waiting lists and times at each national health service trust and district health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", published twice yearly. Copies are available in the Library.

  The latest information on the average daily number of available beds is for NHS trusts and directly managed units and is published in "Bed availability for England: Financial Year 1993–94", copies of which are also available in the Library.

  Health Service Development, London
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how it is proposed to develop London's health services following the recent public consultations conducted by health authorities in north and south London. [18858]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today written to the chairmen of the North and South Thames regional health authorities advising them of my decisions on a number of proposals from health authorities to develop local services. These proposals have all been subject to extensive public consultation and I have given most careful consideration to the comments made. Copies of my letters to the regional chairmen will be placed in the Library.

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  I have decided to accept the proposals for the concentration of acute services provided by the Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust by developing St. Thomas' as the main site for acute in-patient and emergency services, and
  1042
  developing Guy's as a hospital for local people providing a range of services including a minor injuries unit, out-patient clinics, day surgery facilities and in-patient beds for planned, non-emergency treatment for people on waiting lists. Guy's would also retain the dental hospital and school, and would provide mental health services including in-patient beds. I have made it clear that the Guy's accident and emergency department and supporting beds are not to close until alternative facilities are in place and operating satisfactorily, which I understand will not be before the end of 1998.

  I have also decided to accept the proposal to transfer kidney transplant operations from King's College hospital, Dulwich to the Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust.

  Bexley and Greenwich

  I have decided to accept the proposals to develop the Queen Elizabeth military hospital as the main new NHS district general hospital for the Greenwich area by transferring acute services from Greenwich district hospital and the Brook hospital to QEMH. This will lead to the closure of the Brook hospital and change of use of the Greenwich district hospital. I have also decided to agree to the transfer of specialist neurosurgery and cardiothoracic services from the Brook hospital to King's and Guy's and St. Thomas', respectively.

  East London and The City

  I have decided to accept the proposals to improve the general and specialist services managed by the Royal Hospitals NHS Trust by bringing them together on the Royal London Whitechapel site. This will mean, over time, transferring services from the London chest hospital site and most of the St. Bartholomew's site.

  I am determined that the St. Bartholomew's ethos and culture should be preserved, albeit on a different site. In making my decision, I have paid particular attention to the views which have been expressed about the historical significance of St. Bartholomew's and its national and international importance as a centre of excellence in medical teaching and research. I am setting up a project team to explore the options for using the invaluable asset of the Smithfield site. This will build on the work carried out by the trust and the "City Initiative".

  I also welcome the proposals to develop the Homerton hospital as a modern district general hospital for the growing population of Hackney.

  Barnet

  I have decided to accept the proposals to develop the Edgware site as a new local hospital. The Edgware accident and emergency department will be replaced by a minor injuries unit, and in-patient services transferred from Edgware general hospital to Barnet General, following completion of its redevelopment, Northwick Park and the Royal Free hospitals. I have made it clear that the Edgware accident and emergency department is to remain open until phase la of the development at the Barnet general hospital, which includes a new accident and emergency department, has been completed, which I understand is not expected to be before 1997, and satisfactory arrangements are in place for ambulance transport and for patient and visitor transport between the two sites.

  The changes which I have agreed will strengthen specialist services by concentrating them in fewer, better,

  1043
  centres of excellence and provide modern acute hospitals closer to major centres of population. Together with major planned investment in primary and community health services, they will take forward our aim of improving health care for Londoners.

  Exhaust Fumes (Leukaemia)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of whether exposure to benzene from motor exhaust fumes is a causative factor in leukaemia and lymphoma; and if she will make a statement. [17701]

  Mr. Sackville
  Benzene is known to have both carcinogenic and toxic effects, and studies of workers exposed to high concentrations of benzene—up to 100 parts per million—throughout their working life have demonstrated increased risks of leukaemia. Because benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen, no absolutely safe level of exposure can be defined. However, no adverse effect on blood formation has been confirmed in humans following regular repeated exposure to benzene in air at concentrations below 25–30 ppm.

  The Department is advised on the health effects of benzene by the Committee on Carcinogenicity and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. Their views were taken into account by the joint Department of the Environment/Department of Health expert panel on air quality standards when it recommended a United Kingdom air quality standard for benzene of 5ppb as a running annual average. The urban annual average concentrations is generally at or below 5ppb; at these concentrations there is only an exceedingly small risk to health. The overall effect of policies now in place or agreed means that by the year 2000 exceedances of 5ppb standard should be virtually eliminated.

  Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus occurred in Britain in each year since 1990 and in each month since January 1994. [17770]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally in England. Details relating to Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Foster Placements
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals she is considering to alter the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 with respect to the duties of local authorities and the delegation of those duties to profit-making independent fostering agencies; [17553]

  (2) what consultations she has undertaken or plans to undertake about any proposed changes in the Foster Placement Regulations 1991. [17554]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government propose to amend the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 to allow local authorities to delegate to profit-making bodies, certain of their fostering duties.

  In August 1994 the Department of Health advised authorities, through circular LAC(94)20, copies of which are available in the Library, of an intention to amend these
  1044
  regulations in this way. I shall shortly be consulting on the draft regulations and associated guidance.

  Lynfield Mount Hospital
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disciplinary action has been taken following the internal and external inquiries into the circumstances in which Raymond Pemberton escaped from the secure unit at Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford; and if she will make a statement. [18156]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for Bradford Community Health National Health Service Trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust for details.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in her Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18326]

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of staff in post in the Department's agencies for the period 1 April 1993 to 1 February 1995—the latest date for which information is held—and the numbers of posts in agencies which have been contractorised in the last two years, are shown in the tables.

  Agency staff in post1

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 February 1995

  Medicines Control Agency

  327

  379

  372

  National Health Service Estates

  98

  99

  109

  National Health Service

  Pensions Agency

  531

  530

  498.6

  Medical Devices Agency

  —

  2160.5

  158

  1 Vacancies and unfilled posts not included.

  2 The Medical Devices Agency was established on 27 September 1994. Staff in post figures are given for that date.

  Contractorised posts

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Medicines Control Agency

  2

  —

  National Health Service Estates

  23

  —

  National Health Service Pensions Agency

  —

  16.4

  Medical Devices Agency

  —

  4.35

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations or considerations were received either by her Department or the regional health authority concerning the future of the Royal Northern hospital in Islington. [18417]

  Mr. Malone
  The future of the Royal Northern hospital is a matter for the North Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Stavely, chairman of the authority, for information concerning the representations the authority has received. The Department of Health has received few expressions of interest in the future of the hospital.

  Accident and Emergency Services, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the accident and emergency departments of(a) the Royal Free hospital, (b) University College hospital, (c) Whittingdon hospital, (d) the Royal London hospital, (e) Homerton hospital, (f) North Middlesex and (g) Chase Farm will remain open permanently. [18310]

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of accident and emergency services is the responsibility of local health authorities, and is determined in the light of local needs, priorities and resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact New River health authority for details of any plans concerning North Middlesex and Chase Farm hospitals; Camden and Islington health authority about the Royal Free, Whittington and University College hospitals; and East London and The City health authority about Homerton and the Royal London hospitals.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the operating capacity and operating level of each of London's accident and emergency units; and if she will make a statement. [18289]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for local health authorities to determine the extent of their needs for accident and emergency services, and to ensure that these are met.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration her Department has given to the effect that the closure of London hospitals will have on the time that emergency ambulances will take to reach a suitable hospital. [18269]

  Mr. Malone
  When proposing major service changes, local heath authorites take into account the effect on ambulance journey times to ensure that arrangements will be adequate.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase or decrease in the number of dentists between 1985 and 1995 in the areas of(a) Kent, (b) Surrey, (c) Bedfordshire and (d) Buckinghamshire. [18273]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: numbers of dentists1,2 in Kent, Surrey, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire family health services authorities at 30 September 1995 and 30 September 1994.

  FHSA

  1985

  1994

  Increase

  Kent

  458

  540

  82

  Surrey

  431

  443

  12

  Bedfordshire

  128

  149

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  189

  240

  51

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Notes:

  1 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees. Excludes hospital, community and salaried dentists.

  2 Some dentists have contracts with more than one family health services authority. These dentists have been counted only once, in the family health services authority in which they hold their main contracts.

  Contagious Diseases (Health Workers)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses and how many doctors have died from 1046
  contagious diseases originating at their work place in each of the last 15 years; what information is given to nursing and other staff of the risks of disease from specific patients; and if she will make a statement. [16946]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: The information requested from the national health service industrial injuries scheme records would require extensive manual investigations and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information from other sources is as shown.

  Employers are required by the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 to report specified diseases suffered by a person currently at work where the work involves an activity mentioned in the schedule. There is no requirement to report deaths resulting from these diseases. The specified diseases relevant to health care workers most likely to be fatal are hepatitis, tuberculosis and illnesses caused by a pathogen which presents a hazard to human health. The latter would include HIV. The table gives details of reports received since April 1986 where the occupation was given as nurse or doctor. Not all of these will have been occupationally acquired.

  Year

  Hepatitis

  Tuberculosis

  Pathogen

  Total

  1986–87

  11

  6

  4

  21

  1987–88

  9

  3

  —

  12

  1988–89

  7

  1

  —

  8

  1989–90

  8

  2

  —

  10

  1990–91

  5

  3

  2

  10

  1991–92

  4

  5

  12

  21

  1992–93

  1

  2

  2

  5

  1993–94

  —

  2

  2

  4

  The Public Health Laboratory Service keep records of how HIV infection and hepatitis B were probably acquired. No deaths from AIDS are known to have occurred in health care workers who acquired HIV infection occupationally. No fatal cases of acute hepatitis B are known to have occurred in a health care worker infected at work in the United Kingdom during the past 10 years.

  The number of deaths from tuberculosis in health care workers infected at work is not known. However, a survey in 1988 revealed fewer than 50 health care workers with tuberculosis and the majority of those will not have acquired the disease through their work. Based on the known fatality rate for TB in this age group, only one or two of these cases will be expected to have died.

  In 1990 The Department of Health issued a booklet "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers—Protection Against Infection With HIV and Hepatitis Viruses". Advice is also contained in guidelines by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens; "HIV—the Causative agent of AIDS" also issued in 1990. Advice on protection of health workers was given in the British Thoracic Society guidelines in 1994. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Food labelling (Peanut Products)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to introduce food safety regulations to enforce the indication of peanut extract contents on food labelling. [17014]
  1047
  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Community's scientific committee for food is currently considering recommendations concerning which allergens occurring in food have sufficiently serious consequences for consumer health to justify their always being listed on a food label. We expect the EC Commission to make proposals for revised rules following receipt of the scientific opinion and we expect that peanuts will be included.

  In the meantime, my officials have held discussions with industry and consumer representatives and have established awareness of the problem across all sectors of the industry. As a result, many food manufacturers are now labelling their products voluntarily and some have examined the reformulation of products. We have also sponsored research to determine whether and how far groundnut oils may be contributing to the problems.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in England the total number of homeless households accepted for each local authority in each year between 1979 and 1994. [17045]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the numbers of homeless households which each local authority in England reported as having accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 in the years 1979 to 1994.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of council homes sold(a) under the right to buy, and (b) otherwise, by each local authority in England in each year from 1980 to 1994. [17044]

  Mr. Curry
  Tables showing the available information on total right-to-buy sales for each English local authority for every financial year from 1979–80 to March 1994 are in the Library. In addition, the tables also give data on total sales and on the number of flats sold.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which are considered to be debt free; and what are the Government guidelines on the debt to equity ratio for local authorities. [17372]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A local authority is debt free if it has a nil or negative credit ceiling at the beginning of the current financial year and has no outstanding borrowing, other than short-term borrowing repayable within not more than 12 months or borrowing under the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1924. The following local authorities declared themselves to be debt free as at 30 September 1994:

  Dorset

  Bedford

  Bracknell

  1048

  Breckland

  Broadland

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  Corby

  Dacorum

  Daventry

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  Epsom and Ewell

  Hambleton

  Hertsmere

  Leominster

  Medina

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Sussex

  Newbury

  Rochester upon Medway

  Ryedale

  St. Edmundsbury

  South Bucks

  South Northampton

  South Shropshire

  South Wight

  South Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Swale

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tunbridge Wells

  West Sussex

  Barking and Dagenham

  City of London

  There is no real equivalent to shareholders' equity in local authorities, and therefore no guidelines on the ratio of debt to equity. But the local government capital finance system effectively regulates authorities' new borrowing and requires provision to be made for debt redemption. We will continue to encourage local authorities to reduce their outstanding debt using sums which they have set aside for this purpose.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the rate support grant to local authorities. [18236]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Revenue support grant funds the difference between local authorities' standard spending assessments and what they can expect to receive from council taxes, non-domestic rates and from other grants. The relative levels of these components are considered annually by the Government as part of the public expenditure round.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce his capping principles for 1995–96 and the list of authorities which he intends to cap.

  Mr. Gummer
  My capping principles for 1995–96 are as follows:

  (i) for police authorities:

  any increase of more than 2.5 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over SSA;

  any increase of more than 1.5 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over 5 per cent. above SSA;

  any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over 10 per cent. above SSA;

  1049

  (ii) for inner London boroughs and the metropolitan county fire and civil defence authorities:

  any increase of more than 2 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over SSA;

  any increase of more than 1.25 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over 5 per cent. above SSA;

  any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over 10 per cent. above SSA;

  (iii) for all other authorities:

  any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. over the 1994–95 base budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a 1995–96 budget requirement over SSA;

  (iv) for all authorities:

  any 1995–96 budget requirement more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA is excessive save that an authority will not be designated if:

  (a) its 1994–95 SSA was reduced by 10 per cent. or more purely as a result of the 1993 SSA review and its 1995–96 budget requirement is a cash freeze or reduction on its 1994–95 base budget;

  (b) its 1995–96 budget requirement is 30 per cent. or less above SSA and is a cash freeze or reduction on its 1994–95 base budget;

  (c) its 1995–96 budget requirement is 60 per cent. or less above SSA and is at least 5 per cent. below its 1994–95 base budget;

  (d) its 1995–96 budget requirement is at least 10 per cent. below its 1994–95 base budget.

  with the general proviso that:
  no authority is to be designated if its budget requirement is £10,000 or less above the limit implied by these principles.

  In accordance with sections 54 and 56 of the Local Government Act 1992, I have decided to designate the authorities listed. The amount given in brackets after each authority is the amount which I am proposing should be the maximum amount calculated by each authority as its budget requirement for 1995–96—in the case of billing authorities, the amount is gross of local precepts:

  Devon county council—£592.046 million

  Gloucestershire county council—£300.714 million

  Shropshire county council—£239.364 million

  Somerset county council—£262.321 million

  Sheffield city council—£392.763 million

  Newcastle upon Tyne city council—£233.991 million

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council—£150.626 million

  Norwich city council—£16.378 million

  Lincolnshire police authority—£58.577 million

  South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority—£32.934 million

  I have placed in the Library of the House a table which gives further details.

  Authorities which have been designated for council tax capping now have a period of 28 days, starting today, in which to inform us whether or not they accept their proposed cap. It they accept, the cap is confirmed by notice and the authority can set a revised lower budget and lower council tax bills forthwith. The exception is South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority which has been designated at the budget it originally set and therefore does not have to reduce its budget nor incur rebilling costs. If an authority challenges, it must propose an alternative together with its reasons for doing so. At this stage, authorities have the opportunity to meet us to explain that case. Once we have considered all the available information, we shall propose final caps which will be included in an order, a draft of which is debated
  1050
  by the House of Commons. If the draft order is approved, final caps are set by notice and revised budgets and council tax levels must then be set by the authorities concerned.

  Gloucestershire County Council
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Gloucestershire county council's total debt for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for each of the previous 10 years. [17373]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Outstanding debt at end of year1

  Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  23.9

  1984–85

  23.8

  1985–86

  45.9

  1986–87

  53.4

  1987–88

  66.8

  1988–89

  92.4

  1989–90

  104.4

  1990–91

  121.1

  1991–92

  124.5

  1992–93

  129.9

  1993–94

  136.3

  Sources:

  1 1983–90 CIPFA capital expenditure and debt financing statistics.

  1990–94 Total external debt, borrowing and lending surveys and the Public Works Loans Board.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Internet electronic addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information superhighway. [17738]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  DOE is currently evaluating the Internet for electronic communications and has not established formal e-mail addresses for the Department centrally or Ministers individually. A fully advanced office support system project is, however, now under way and will, among other things, provide full electronic mail links across all areas of the Department and the ability to communicate via external networks, during the next three years.

  Officials have been asked to investigate the feasibility of publishing a range of departmental information through the Internet. No firm decision has yet been taken by the Department to use this service.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 27 March,Official Report, column 432, what is his Department's view on whether value for money in public procurement and the efficient contribution of the construction industry to the economy is best served by a single exclusive register for public sector work. [17726]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Sir Michael Latham, in his review "Constructing the Team", recommended that there should be single lists of contractors and consultants
  1051
  seeking public sector work. He further recommended that these be based upon the contractor management information systems and the consultants register, databases managed by the Department of the Environment. Two working groups acting under the auspices of the Construction Industry Board are considering Sir Michael's recommendations. One is considering consultants, the other contractors. Both working groups are due to report later this year. In tandem with the two working groups, the Department of the Environment has set in hand a consultancy project with Capita Management Consultancy Ltd., which is considering, among other things, the costs and benefits which would accrue to both the public and private sector, in having a single list for contractors and consultants for public sector work. The consultants are due to report at the end of April this year.

  Local Authorities (Overtime)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on total overtime payments made by local authorities; and if he will list the total amount paid by each local authority in the most recent year the information is available. [18063]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 229, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), if he will list for the remaining regional government offices the research projects contracted for, the titles of the projects, their estimated cost and to which company or organisation they have been awarded. [17492]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: The following contracts have been let on behalf of the government offices listed, since their establishment in April 1994:

  Government Office for the North East

  None

  Government Office for the North West

  None

  Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  Research and evaluation advice unit

  41,000

  Leeds Metropolitan university

  Analysis of TEC corporate plans

  4,700

  BPI group

  Regional economic review

  13,000

  Leeds Metropolitan university

  Market it yourself tool-kit—for use by community and voluntary organisations

  10,000

  Collingwood Court and Associates Ltd.

  1052

  Government Office for Merseyside

  Title

  Estimated cost (£)

  Contractor

  Mapping exercise into womens' networks, self-help groups and information points.

  17,299

  Kate Smith

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  Travel patterns in the west midlands

  37,000

  ECOTOEC Ltd.

  Integrated regional office consultancy study

  23,221

  Cooper Simms Associates Ltd.

  Government Office for the East Midlands

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  Research into the strategic and operational aspects of planning the delivery of modern apprenticeships

  9,655

  Pieda plc

  Research into the position of women in the economy and labour market in the east midlands

  15,639

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Research into TECs in the east midlands in influencing the delivery and provision of higher level skills, education and training

  9,655

  Pieda plc

  Research into the extent of management skills in the east midlands and possible future management skill requirements

  10,239

  University of Warwick

  Government Office for the Eastern Region

  None.

  Government Office for the South West

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  National education and training targets in the south west

  11,000

  Prism Research (in collaboration with the SW TECS)

  Competitiveness: a regional management economic and labour market assessment

  21,000

  K P M G Consulting

  Fair play for women— mapping of women's networks in the south-west and research into their level of effectiveness

  18,000

  M Ball

  Government Office for the South East

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  Household survey of progress towards lifetime targets

  10,000

  Hampshire TEC

  1053

  Government Office for the South East

  Title

  Estimated Cost £

  Contractor

  Customer survey

  20,000

  Surrey TEC

  Career aspirations of adolescent girls

  4,490

  The Basingstoke Consortium

  Delivery of fair play for women—Research into Muslim women's Borough experience in the labour market

  4,500

  Reading Borough Council

  Technical vocational education initiative research

  5,252

  Denman Associates

  Funding strategies for high-tech businesses

  1,234

  Innovation Resources (George Deacon)

  "South-east Fact File" Update

  3,000

  Ancer Ltd

  Motor Exhaust Pollution
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the addition of involatile ethers on motor exhaust pollution. [17769]

  Mr. Atkins
  The environmental case for the addition of involatile ethers such as MTBE, ETBE or TAME to petrol as oxygenating agents in not yet clear. The Government will continue to keep their use under review, and will be participating fully in the setting of standards for vehicle emissions and fuel formulation at a European level, in particular in the light of the forthcoming report from the European tripartite initiative on future engine and fuel technologies.

  Walton Bridge
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in the planning application by Surrey county council to replace Walton bridge. [17775]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are considering representations that the application should be called in for decision by my right hon. Friend. I shall write to the hon. Member when the decision on call-in has been made.

  North Sea
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the progress being made to fulfil United Kingdom commitments to a 50 per cent. reduction in pollution levels of pesticides and heavy metals going into the North sea. [17476]

  Mr. Atkins
  A comprehensive progress report on the mplementation of all the commitments made at the third international conference on the protection of the North sea, including that to achieve significant reductions—of 50 per cent. or more—of inputs to the North sea of certain listed hazardous substances, is being prepared jointly by the North sea states, and will be published for the fourth North sea conference in June. A copy will be placed in Library.

  Allowing for the difficulties of assessment and comparison, this report will show that the United Kingdom has reduced, by about 50 per cent. or more,
  1054
  inputs of 12 of the 16 pesticides, and seven of the eight heavy metals, in the list. Other reductions have also been achieved.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the guidance on the regulations for the dismantling and metals recycling industry forthwith, and extend the date for registration for exemption from waste management licensing until 1 May 1995. [18428]

  Mr. Atkins
  Exemptions from waste management licensing for the recovery of scrap metal are provided in the Waste Management licensing (Amendment etc.) Regulations 1995 which came into force on 1 April 1995. The effect of regulations 3(7) and (8) is to provide a six-month transitional period, to 1 October 1995, during which businesses may register exemptions. We have provided guidance on the regulations in DOE circular 6/95. Copies of the circular have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Charges
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the basis of charging for water in England and Wales after March 2000 when the use of rateable value will no longer be possible. [18809]

  Mr. Gummer
  It is for water companies to decide the basis on which they should calculate the bills of individual customers, although the Director General of Water Services has powers to prevent preferential and discriminatory charging of individuals and classes of customer. Companies may not, however, use rateable values after 31 March 2000, and there are limitations on access to information about the council tax banding of individual properties.

  The Government believe that metering is in the long term the best basis for paying for water in many circumstances. It is fair and equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used. It gives customers some control over their bills. Payment by amount used encourages customers to use only water they need and in dry areas it is important that we should develop patterns of water use that are sustainable in the longer term. The Government therefore believe that companies should extend the availability of meters as far as is reasonable. Compulsory transfer to meters for existing domestic customers in existing premises should not generally be necessary.

  For practical reasons, wide extension of the use of meters will take considerable time to achieve. Meanwhile, companies will need an alternative basis of charging for many properties. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have considered the representations we have received from the water industry that information about council valuation bands would be a suitable basis for charging for water. We have looked carefully at the evidence which has been put forward. We have concluded that a change to a system based on council tax banding would not be satisfactory. Such a charging system would not necessarily be more equitable than any other unmeasured basis and its introduction would give rise to widespread and arbitrary changes in bills, including the possibility of substantial increases in charges for many of those least

  1055
  able to pay. Further changes would also have to follow as customers moved to charging by metered consumption. We do not therefore intend to allow access to this information.

  Companies will, however, need an alternative to metering as the basis of charging after 31 March 2000. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have therefore decided that the best course would be to allow the use of rateable values after that date. The necessary changes to the legislation will be made in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food and Drink Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom food and drink deficit or surplus(a) in total and (b) with other countries of the EU for each year from 1990 to 1994. [14929]

  Mr. Jack
  [Pursuant to his reply, 22 March 1995, co. 232.]: Imports and exports of food, feed and drink as recorded in the overseas trade statistics in the years 1990 to 1994 are shown in £ million in the table:

  £ million

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993 provisional

  January-September 1994 provisional

  Total:

  Imports

  12,298

  12,262

  13,406

  13,841

  10,868

  Exports

  6,352

  6,827

  7,521

  8,053

  6,435

  Crude trade gap

  5,946

  5,435

  5,886

  5,789

  4,433

  EU:

  Imports

  8,030

  8,019

  8,862

  8,381

  6,510

  October

  1994 November

  December

  January

  1995 February

  March (to 29th)

  Flights

  None

  33

  71

  3

  31

  51

  Calves

  None

  6,296

  13,535

  291

  3,102

  4,946

  No calf fatalities have been reported during loading or unloading, or while the calves were on board the aircraft.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary surgeon present at all loadings of calves on to aeroplanes art Coventry airport. [16975]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: All loading of calves on to planes at Coventry airport are supervised by an inspector or a veterinary inspector from the Ministry.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the legal opinion published on 30 March by the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which argues that the Government could lawfully prohibit the export of veal calves for rearing in veal crates. [18769]
  1056

  £ million

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993 provisional

  January-September 1994 provisional

  Exports

  3,632

  4,293

  4,736

  4,730

  3,885

  Crude trade gap

  4,398

  3,726

  4,127

  3,651

  2,625

  Note:

  Because of differences in valuation principles, the crude trade gap overstates the contribution of food, feed and drink to the deficit on visible trade in the balance of payment statistics by about 15 per cent.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Live Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether calves kept in lorries while waiting for loading on to an aeroplane can be adequately watered. [16979]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: It is possible, depending on the circumstances, for calves to be satisfactorily fed with liquid feed while on a lorry. The circumstances have not to date arisen where this has been necessary while waiting for loading on to an aeroplane.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of calves being exported by aeroplanes from Coventry airport; how many calves have departed from Coventry airport in each month since September 1994; and how many calf fatalities there were in each month which occured (i) during loading; (ii) on board the aircraft and (iii) during unloading. [16973]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Information about flights from Coventry with calves is as follows:

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The legal opinion published by the RSPCA and IFAW on 30 March is a complex document which merits thorough examination. I shall consider it carefully alongside the other legal advice I have received.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people will be transferred from local authorities to the Meat Hygiene Service; and what is the total estimated cost of this operation. [17017]

  Mrs. Browning
  A total of 753 staff are expected to transfer to the Meat Hygiene Service from local authorities. External consultants were employed to carry out this exercise which has been completed at a cost of £85,000.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the difference in charges for meat inspection per hour between each local authority and
  1057
  the Meat Hygiene Service. [17618]

  Mrs. Browning
  A comparison between existing local authorities authority charges for meat inspection and the proposed standard charges by the Meat Hygiene Service was given in the cost compliance assessment which was tabled with the Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Examinations for Residues) (Charges) Regulations 1995.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 29 March, Official Report, columns 653–54.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many people will be employed by the Meat Hygiene Service; and what will be their total annual salary; [17016]

  (2) what will be the number of senior management staff within the Meat Hygiene Service; and what is their estimated total annual salary. [17024]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Meat Hygiene Service expects to employ 947 staff at an estimated total annual salary for 1995–96 of £26.5 million. It will employ 11 senior managers at an estimated total annual salary of £476,000.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total number of Meat Hygiene Service(a) official veterinary surgeons and (b) Meat Hygiene Inspectors; and what will be their estimated salaries. [17219]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Meat Hygiene Service expects to employ 47 official veterinary surgeons and 835 meat hygiene inspectors. In addition, veterinary services and relief cover for meat inspection will be obtained through contract. I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 3 April to hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) in respect of MHS salaries.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Minister has to monitor the capacity of abattoirs in the United Kingdom. [17019]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has no plans to collect this information centrally. Information on the capacity of British abattoirs is contained in the Meat and Livestock Commission's annual publication entitled "The Abattoir Industry in Great Britain", available from the MLC, ISBN 0904650.33.2.

  Intergovernmental Panel on the Oceans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the letter from the Prime Minister to hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 March, what progress has been made on the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans. [17199]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government share concerns about the depletion of fish stocks and the wider problems of the marine environment. We are reviewing the adequacy of existing mechanisms for fisheries management and will be taking soundings internationally about the possible value of a new initiative such as the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each
  1058
  Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information superhighway. [17740]

  Mr. Jack
  As a result of its participation in the CCTA Government information service pilot project, MAFF is aware of the potential offered by electronic networks such as the Internet for the rapid and cost-effective dissemination of public information, and some of the wider opportunities that might be available to the Department through access to Internet services such as the world wide web. The Department is reviewing the options for developing the use of these services further by expanding the range of information on MAFF services, activities and publications accessible to Internet users, and for providing direct access to Internet services for MAFF staff. This work will include looking into the provision of a dedicated MAFF service on the Internet, together with full consideration of the security issues.

  We shall also be considering how e-mail access to all parts of the Department, including Ministers' offices, can be increased. The current structure of the Internet electronic mail address for MAFF divisions is:
  a.n.other@div.maff.gov.uk

  At present, the gateway for public inquirers using e-mail is through the MAFF helpline service on:
  helpline@inf.maff.gov.uk

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the development and use of non-organophosphorous sheep dips. [17392]

  Mrs Browning
  Flumethrin-based non-organophos-phorous sheep dips are already authorised for use in the United Kingdom. Decisions on whether to use these products is the responsibility of the individual sheep farmer in the light of their particular circumstances, including the alternatives available and the health status of their flock. The development and marketing of non-organophosphorous dips is a matter for the commercial judgment of the manufacturers concerned. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate will do all it can to complete the assessment of any applications for marketing authorisations for such products as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the assessment of the proposals submitted for epidemiological research into the effects of organophosphorous sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [18770]

  Mrs. Browning
  Thirteen proposals were received in response to the advertisements placed at the end of 1994 following acceptance by the Government of the recommendation of the medical and scientific panel of the veterinary products committee for carefully designed and targeted epidemiological studies into the effects of OP sheep dips. This research is to be publicly funded. Assessment of the proposals has now been completed, and after detailed consideration it has been concluded that none meets the specifications laid down in the original advertisement. Considerable changes would need to be made before any of them could do so and, in the circumstances, it has been decided to re-advertise so that new or revised proposals can be submitted. This will be done as quickly as possible, but it is now likely to be the end of July before any contracts can be awarded.
  1059
  I very much regret this further delay in getting this important work under way, but it is clearly in the interests of all concerned to ensure that any research which is commissioned is both scientifically sound and addresses the issues of concern.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will indicate in respect of the members of the review of the common fisheries policy(a) their position for or against the common fisheries policy and (b) the Government or European posts or grants which they have or have had in the past; [17964]

  (2) what consultations he has had with (a) the Scottish White Fish Producers, (b) the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and (c) Save Britain's Fish before appointing the members of his review body on the common fisheries policy; of if he will accept nominations from these bodies for members; [17896]

  (3) what consideration was given to including in the review group of the common fisheries policy individuals critical of the common fisheries policy. [17963]

  Mr. Jack
  The members of the group set up to review the common fisheries policy were appointed because of the particular personal expertise in fisheries and related matters which they could bring to the group's discussions. I shall want the group to take an open-minded look at possible improvements to the CFP and, if it decides that it would help its work to hear from specific organisations or individuals, that could be arranged. I did not consider it would be helpful to have members representing particular interest groups.

  Banner Report
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to respond to the recommendation in the Banner report on the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals to establish an advisory standing committee on the broad ethical questions involved in this field. [18076]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government are considering with the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the animal procedures committee whether an additional source of advice on ethical issues is needed or whether the existing committees could fulfil this role. These bodies are expected to consider the issue later in the year.

  Grant Misuse
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the total cost to his Department of preparing and bringing charges against farmers in Devon and Cornwall for allegedly misusing departmental grants for hedging and ditching; against how many farmers his Department has prepared cases; how many have been charged; and what has been the outcome of any court cases so far; [18005]

  (2) if it is his Department's intention to continue to pursue charges against farmers in Devon and Cornwall for allegedly misusing hedging and ditching grants; and if he will make a statement. [18006]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has been conducting investigations into a large number of grant applications in 1060
  Devon and Cornwall.As a result of these investigations, so far, 19 people have been summoned and subsequently committed to the Crown court for trial. One case has been heard, at the end of February, and this resulted in an acquittal of the defendant. Three further cases are likely to be listed for trial in May. All the cases are kept under constant review in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. Further reports are under consideration and at this stage I am unable to comment further.

  It is not possible to calculate the total cost to the Department of preparing and bringing charges before the court without disproportionate cost being incurred.

  Crop Fees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of the Seeds (National List of Varieties) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations (SI 1995 No. 607); what is the highest percentage increase in fees on crops; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a fee for a winter oilseed rape variety. [18396]

  Mr. Jack
  These regulations implement the final stage of a review of the statutory plant variety trialling system, which reduced the overall number of trial sites and hence the overall costs. The industry was fully consulted and agreed the proposals. Part of this agreement included the reintroduction of statutory trial fees over two years from 1 April 1994. The cost to the industry of such fees is more than offset by the savings arising from the reduced trialling system and the transfer of disease testing costs to Government. The net effect of these arrangements was to reduce the overall costs to the industry by about 10 per cent.

  Since the industry agreed to the above arrangements in advance, I foresee no adverse effect from the introduction of statutory trial fees for winter oilseed rape varieties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16573]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are currently 29 press officers working in the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office compared with 26 in 1979.

  Part-time Study
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to reduce the number of hours permitted for a person on benefit to attend courses at colleges of further education without losing benefit; and if they have examined the impact of these plans on(a) the participation in vocational education courses by the long-term unemployed and (b) the future of further education establishments

  1061
  particularly those developed specifically to tackle the shortage of skills in areas of high unemployment. [17069]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government have announced proposals to update the rules for part-time study while claiming unemployment benefits when jobseeker's allowance is introduced in April 1996.

  As now, people claiming unemployment benefits will be able to study part-time provided they remain available for and are actively seeking employment. Courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council in England are, however, no longer classed as either full or part-time. They are defined in terms of the number of guided learning hours per week and the Government have decided, therefore, that for benefit purposes, part-time further education courses in England will be defined as courses up to 16 guided learning hours.

  The concept of guided learning hours does not apply in Northern Ireland and consideration is being given to definitions that will reflect the education system in Northern Ireland. The new rules will be designed so that the same number of people can study part time while claiming unemployment benefits as do so now.

  School Pupils
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial commitment the Government will give to a strategy within the primary and secondary sector to address low achievement levels among young people in the non-grammar school sector in Northern Ireland using professsionally qualified teachers. [17066]

  Mr. Ancram
  Some £20 million is being made available over the next three years to support an initiative aimed at addressing the problem of low achievement by pupils in a number of primary and secondary—non-grammer—schools in Northern Ireland. Selected schools will bid for the additional resources on the basis of school improvement plans which they must prepare.

  University of Ulster
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that the education and training services provided by the proposed new university of Ulster campus will complement the existing services in the west Belfast community. [17070]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have given no commitment to the proposed new university of Ulster campus at Springvale. The findings of an economic appraisal, and a report by the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council, both of which are expected shortly, will have to be fully considered before any firm view can be taken.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the official total cell capacity and (b) the inmate prison population in each prison in Northern Ireland on 24 March 1995. [17237]
  1062
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Establishment

  Total cell capacity

  Number of prisoners

  Her Majesty's Prison Belfast

  413

  293

  Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry

  500

  331

  Her Majesty's Prison Magilligan

  328

  298

  Her Majesty's Prison Maze

  794

  721

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Centre

  295

  198

  Total

  2,330

  1,841

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount of drugs and explosives that have been detected for each of the past five years as a result of strip searching of convicted and remand prisoners in(a)female and (b) male establishments. [18134]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. D. Shannon to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question relating to finds during full searches in Northern Ireland Prison Service establishments.
  The information you requested in respect of female prisoners is set out below. Information in the form required in respect of male prisoners is unobtainable from records after 31 march 1993.
  Part (a):

  Finds of drugs and explosives that have been detected for each of the past five years as a result of full searching of convicted and remand prisoners in female establishments:

  1.3.90–31.12.90: None

  1.1.91–31.12.91: None

  1.1.92–31.12.92: None

  1.1.93–31.12.93: None

  1.1.94–31.12.94: None

  1.1.95–28.2.95: None

  Part (b):
  Finds of drugs and explosives that have been detected for each of the past five years as a result of full searching of convicted and remand prisoners in male establishments:

  1.3.90–31.12.90: There were 5 incidences of finds of drugs. Precise quantities are not recorded.

  1.1.91–31.12.91: There were 5 incidences of finds of drugs. Precise quantities are not recorded.

  1.1.92–31.12.92: There were 14 incidences of finds of drugs. Precise quantities are not recorded.

  1.1.93–31.3.93: There were 3 incidences of finds of drugs. Precise quantities are not recorded.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the launch of the Northern Ireland Prison Service as an executive agency of the Northern Ireland Office. [18766]
  1063
  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service was established as an executive agency on 1 April 1995. I have set a number of key performance targets for the agency to achieve in its first year. These are as follows:To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top risk categories.
  To ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security for prisoners in medium and low risk categories.
  To ensure that the number of significant breaches of order and control does not exceed 159, this being the average for the previous three years. This figure will also form the baseline for future years.
  To increase the proportion of prisoner places with access to sanitation at all times of the day and night from 70 per cent. to 80 per cent.
  To increase the amount of time available for vocational training and occupational services from four hours per day to five hours and for education from 4.5 hours per day to six hours.
  To devise a system of regime monitoring and set baselines for each establishment.
  To implement the following programme to improve further the links between prisoners and their families:
  publishing a visitors charter approved by the Northern Ireland charter unit for HMP Magilligan and HM YOC Hydebank Wood;
  extending the use of payphones to all establishments; and opening additional visiting accommodation at HMP Maghaberry
  To offer all eligible prisoners at HM Magilligan and HMP Maghaberry a sentence plan and to achieve a 50 per cent. uptake;
  To ensure that the average annual cost per prisoner place does not exceed £73,122.

  Copies of the framework document which sets out the terms within which the agency will operate will be placed in the Library, along with its first corporate and business plan.

  Abortion Law
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the report on the abortion laws in Northern Ireland published by the Northern Ireland Family Planning Association, a copy of which has been sent to him. [17283]

  Mr. Moss
  I welcome the report in that it contains information and views which will further inform the current debate on the law on abortion in Northern Ireland.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who appoints(a) chairmen and (b) members of health trusts in Northern Ireland; and what is the criteria for their appointment. [17267]

  Mr. Moss
  All appointments to the boards of HSS Trusts in Northern Ireland are made by the Department of Health and Social Services, with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. All appointments are made on the basis of merit and there are no formal criteria for appointment. However, those appointed are likely to have some or all of the following attributes:an understanding of top management in a large organisation; a relevant specialist skill or knowledge;
  experience of the voluntary sector, preferably at senior management or committee level;
  living or working in the area to be served by the trust;
  willingness to give the necessary time commitment.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the social security benefits generally available to United Kingdom citizens between the years 1980 and 1994; and where the implementation of identical legislation led to different decisions being reached in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. [17512]

  Mr. Moss
  Benefits generally available to United Kingdom citizens from 1980 to 1994 are listed in:"The Government's Expenditure Plans"
  "Northern Ireland Commentary on Public Expenditure Plans"
  "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities: the Government's Expenditure Plans"

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Social Security benefits are available in Northern Ireland on the same basis as they are in Great Britain. It would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of individual cases as these are decided in accordance with the relevant law by independent adjudication authorities in the respective jurisdictions. Anyone who is dissatisfied with these decisions has the right to invoke the statutory review and appeal procedures.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17735]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In line with the open Government code of practice published in April 1994, the Northern Ireland civil service will be developing a strategy for making information available to the public domain through electronic means, including the Internet. CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, have established a "presence" on the Internet for UK Government and some information from Northern Ireland Departments has already been made available to the public using this service. For example, the business development service of the Department of Finance and Personnel arranged for the publication of the joint framework document, UK papers, on the CCTA server. Currently none of the Ministers or Northern Ireland Departments have official addresses on the Internet. However, a number of NICS officials have mail boxes which are accessed through CCTA GTNet service.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 665, if he will list the number of occasions and dates when evidence in relation to drugs offences was available and appropriate action was taken. [17641]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Blue Tongue were reported in each year since 1980. [17816]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Aujesky's disease were reported in each year since 1985. [17811]

  Mr. Ancram
  Aujesky's disease has been notifiable in Northern Ireland only since February 1993. Nine cases of Aujesky's disease were notified in 1993 and eight in 1994. A scheme to eradicate Aujesky's disease in Northern Ireland was introduced in September 1994.

  Hospital Provision
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the report from Mr. James McKenna on hospital provision. [17846]

  Mr. Moss
  The acute hospitals reorganisation project chaired by Dr. James McKenna is looking at a wide range of specialities currently provided in the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust and the Belfast City Trust. I expect to receive a number of reports from Dr. McKenna over the next year.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests there have been from domestic consumers to have their water metered in each of the past five years in Northern Ireland. [17976]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the water and sewerage in Northern Ireland, industrial and domestic, is paid for on a metered basis. [17978]

  Mr. Moss
  Approximately 17.5 per cent. of the annual expenditure on water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland is met from metered charges.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the principal water catchment ares in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of Ireland. [17974]

  Mr. Moss
  The principle water catchment areas in Northern Ireland are:

  The Mourne mountains

  The Antrim plateau

  The Sperrin mountains

  Lough Neagh basin

  Lough Erne catchment

  Foyle valley

  The last three of these straddle the border with the Republic of Ireland. I do not have information on the water catchment areas for the rest of Ireland.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many domestic properties in Northern Ireland are metered for the purpose of paying for water and sewerage; and what percentage this is of the total number of households; [17977]

  (2) how many households have been disconnected for non-payment of water charges in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [17973]
  1066
  Mr. Moss
  The water supplied to a property which is used solely for domestic purposes is not metered and is not subject to disconnection.

  The water supplied to a property which has mixed domestic and other use may be metered and is subject to disconnection for non-payment of water charges.

  The total number of disconnections for non-payment of water charges in Northern Ireland in each of the past five financial years is set out in the table. Information on disconnections of metered supplies with a domestic content could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1989–90: 292

  1990–91: 258

  1991–92: 385

  1992–93: 211

  1993–94: 146

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations the Minister has received from which individuals or groups in Northern Ireland to privatise the water and sewerage industry in the Province. [17975]

  Mr. Moss
  Since the Government announced their intention to privatise water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland in 1992 there have been a number of representations from elected representatives, district councils, voluntary bodies and private individuals about the Government's plans. None of these has expressed support for water privatisation.

  Peace and Reconciliation Programme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to give technical assistance for the preparation of projects and applications for funds under the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [17463]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The draft guidelines for the special support programme stipulates that technical assistance should be made available during the preparation and implementation of the programme. In the preparation stage, it is a matter for the European Commission to offer any necessary assistance. It is likely that the programme will also include a provision to cover technical assistance during the implementation stage, but this will need to be agreed with the Irish authorities and the Commission.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will allow private sector companies to match finance for projects obtained from the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [17465]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Government welcome private sector contributions to projects which the structural funds support. Where activities merit and are eligible for support from the funds within the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, it is likely that there will be scope for the private sector and private finance to play their part. However, the programme has still to be drawn up in conjunction with the Irish authorities and then negotiated with the European Commission.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he(a) has had or (b) intends to have with European Commissioners concerning procedures through which the private sector could access

  1067
  resources from the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [17464]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Government wish to maximise the private sector contribution to projects assisted under the structural funds and have forwarded to the European Commission proposals for facilitating private sector contribution to projects to which the European regional development fund makes grants. This issue is not specific to the special support programme for peace and reconciliation.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he had made of the European Commission guidelines concerning the ability of the private sector wholly to match finance projects eligible for support from the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [17466]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland is subject to the normal regulations governing the use of structural funds. The Government are awaiting the Commission response to UK proposals on the role of private sector matching funds in the context of these regulations.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18532]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18480]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18531]

  (4) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18479]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Neither the Department nor the House of Commons POLIS unit collects information in the form requested.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the reception held at RUC Garnerville on 15 March 1995. [18313]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of staging the RUC information forum on policing on 15 March 1995 at RUC Garnerville. was £5,727.53.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis and on how many occasions the RUC has deployed an armoured car and two RUC constables to Surrey. [18312]
  1068
  Sir John Wheeler
  No armoured RUC vehicles, and consequently no associated constables, have been deployed elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Child Support
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make payments to those recipients of disability working allowance and family credit who lose income for the balance of the period of their existing claim to benefit as a result of the adjustments to the child support maintenance payments arising from the regulation changes to be introduced on 18 April and when; and if he will make a statement. [18764]

  Mr. Moss
  As will happen in the remainder of the United Kingdom, it is the intention to make such payments as soon as it is administratively possible to do so after the loss has been identified. In bringing forward the measure as part of the Child Support Bill now before the House, the Government have recognised that it is unreasonable not to offer compensation to working parents with care who are modestly paid, particularly as the structure of income support offers automatic adjustment for the incomes of those parents with care not at work and dependent on income support.

  It would be unfair to wait until primary legislation receive Royal Assent, before considering compensation, as this would produce a large delay, which might cause hardship. Accordingly, payments will be in advance of both Royal Assent and of any estimate that could include provision for this compensation. Parliamentary approval for this provision will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Health and Social Services, vote 4. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £25,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Northern Ireland contingencies fund.

  Prior Options Studies
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decisions have been reached on recently completed prior options studies carried out by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. [18765]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  These prior options studies were undertaken as part of a strategic review of the Department which examined how it might be reorganised and managed in the context of the Government reform initiative. As a result, it is proposed to create a further five next steps agencies dealing with the planning, environment, road and works services and the land registry and registry of deeds. These proposals will lead to radical restructuring of the Department which will involve a substantial shift in emphasis towards the Department becoming a purchaser rather than a direct provider of executive services. It is proposed that these Agencies will be launched and come into operation from 1 April 1996. When added to the Water Executive Agency, which is in the course of preparation for launch and five existing next steps agencies, the Department will have a total of 11 Agencies.

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the future organisation of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. [18810]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am pleased to announce that the Industrial Research and Technology Unit will be established as an executive agency of the Department of Economic Development with effect from 3 April 1995. It will be responsible for the promotion of industrially-relevant research, development and technology transfer in Northern Ireland. This new status will give IRTU the freedom to operate within a framework of appropriate efficiency targets and performance measures. The following targets have been set for 1995–96:to deliver a marketing programme for the promotion of innovation; this programme will have particular emphasis on the role of middle managers, women in science and the importance of industrial design;
  under the Compete programme to increase the average industrial contribution by 1 per cent. and participation by new users to 10 per cent.;
  to deliver an awareness campaign to promote the benefits of good environmental management and through a series of initiatives to encourage industry to take appropriate action;
  to promote an increase of 20 per cent. in the use of national and worldwide databases;
  to achieve a 20 per cent. increase in the uptake of IRTU's technical consultancy services;
  to deliver a work programme to enable Government Departments to meet obligations for environmental protection, energy efficiency and health and safety at work;
  to achieve efficiency savings of 2.5 per cent.
  to undertake an examination of the scope for market testing of the Unit's activities;
  to develop monitoring systems and, in association with the other DED businesses, deliver an appropriate action plan for targeting social need.

  The policy and resources framework for the new agency is set out in the framework document, copies of which are being place in the Library of the House.

  Total benefit expenditure £ billion1

  Money GDP £ billion2

  Benefit expenditure as percentage of GDP

  Population of Great Britain (000s)3

  Number over state pension age in Great Britain (000s)

  Number over state pension age as percentage of population

  1974–75

  6.6

  89.4

  7.38

  54,709

  9,276

  16.95

  1975–76

  8.9

  111.2

  8.00

  54,702

  9,384

  17.15

  1976–77

  10.6

  130.0

  8.15

  54,693

  9,450

  17.28

  1977–78

  12.8

  151.3

  8.46

  54,667

  9,507

  17.39

  1978–79

  15.9

  173.7

  9.15

  54,655

  9,535

  17.45

  1979–80

  18.8

  208.6

  9.01

  54,712

  9,560

  17.47

  1980–81

  22.7

  237.7

  9.55

  54,797

  9,713

  17.73

  1981–82

  27.7

  261.0

  10.61

  54,815

  9,810

  17.90

  1982–83

  31.6

  285.8

  11.06

  54,780

  9,867

  18.01

  1983–84

  35.3

  310.0

  11.39

  54,834

  9,882

  18.02

  1984–85

  38.3

  332.1

  11.53

  54,956

  9,910

  18.03

  1985–86

  41.8

  364.9

  11.46

  55,127

  10,021

  18.18

  1986–87

  44.9

  392.7

  11.43

  55,285

  10,102

  18.27

  1987–88

  46.7

  434.8

  10.74

  55,434

  10,173

  18.35

  1988–89

  47.3

  484.1

  9.77

  55,580

  10,221

  18.39

  1989–90

  50.2

  525.8

  9.55

  55,775

  10,279

  18.43

  1990–91

  56.5

  556.8

  10.15

  55,972

  10,310

  18.42

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Internet
  Mr.Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super highway.
  [17732]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department of Social Security is currently using Internet to provide and obtain information on a limited scale, and is actively considering further opportunities offered by the information super highway to improve its methods of communication. None of the Department's Ministers is currently linked to the Internet.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases in 1994 individuals were precluded from receiving payment of their retirement pension because of late application, under regulation I9(6)(b) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments Regulations) 1987. [17487]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the total population was old age pensioners in each year since 1974; and what assessment he has made of the relationship between the increase in benefit expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1974–75 to 1994–95 and the increase in the percentage of old age pensioners in the population. [17679]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table. The data indicate that, although the number of people over state pension age as a percentage of the population of Great Britain has increased slightly over the period, this has not been the most significant factor in the increase in benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
  1071

  Total benefit expenditure £ billion1

  Money GDP £ billion2

  Benefit expenditure as percentage of GDP

  Population of Great Britain (000s)3

  Number over state pension age in Great Britain (000s)

  Number over state pension age as percentage of population

  1991–92

  66.1

  580.8

  11.38

  56,207

  10,356

  18.42

  1992–93

  75.2

  604.8

  12.43

  56,388

  10,380

  18.41

  1993–94

  82.4

  639.0

  12.90

  56,559

  10,391

  18.37

  1 1995 Social Security Departmental report and earlier equivalents.

  2 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", 1995–96.

  3 Population figures supplied by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (England and Wales) and General Register Office(Scotland). Population figures for 1994–95 are as yet unavailable.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current cost, gross and net, of increasing the basic state pension by £1 for a single pensioner and pro rata for a pensioner couple. [17688]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost for 1995–96 is £480 million gross1 and £350 million net2.
  1 GB and overseas costs.
  2 Offsetting effects on income-related benefits.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many instances in 1994 women failed to claim their retirement pension on reaching the age of 60 years in the last year. [17486]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested. For the year ended March 1995, approximately 113,000 invitations to claim retirement pension were issued to men and women which did not result in a claim for benefit. These invitations are issued as a matter of course to people with potential entitlement to retirement pension as their 60th or 65th birthday approaches and, if they then fail to claim, again five years later.

  Incapacity Benefit Appeals
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what he expects will be the time between the lodging of an appeal against the refusal of incapacity benefit and the subsequent tribunal hearing; and what plans he has to lay down performance standards in this respect; [17722]

  (2) what is the average period between the lodging of an appeal against the refusal of invalidity benefit and the subsequent tribunal hearing; and what are the performance standards set down by him. [17718]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of appeals is the responsibility of the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte. For 1994–95 he set an average clearance time of 28 weeks for invalidity benefit and other appeals heard by the social security appeal tribunals. This covered the time from lodgement of appeal to the date of tribunal hearing. The same target will apply to incapacity benefit and other social security appeal tribunal appeals in 1995–96. The latest performance figures for invalidity benefit appeals are for the quarter ending June 1994, when they were cleared on average in 26.6 weeks.

  Prisoners (Housing Benefits)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money will be saved by 1072
  reducing housing benefits to prisoners; and what assessment he has made of the consequential effect on the numbers of prisoners and the effect on expenditure; [17506]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the amount of housing benefit for newly released prisoners. [17505]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We estimate that there could be up to 10,000 single prisoners in receipt of housing benefit in a full year at a cost of up to £10 million. By limiting benefit for single prisoners to a maximum of 13 weeks, we expect to save most of that. We are discussing the possible financial effects of the changes with interested Government Departments, however, we do not expect that there will be any impact on the prison population. On release from prison, ex-offenders will be able to claim help with their housing costs in the same way as other tenants.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the costs of the changes to the Disability Discrimination Bill proposed by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 27 and 28 March; if he will itemise the cost of each change; and what he now expects to be the total cost of the Bill. [17802]

  Mr. Hague
  During consideration of the Disability Discrimination Bill on 27 and 28 March, I announced that the Government would seek to amend it in the Lords so that it would confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition and to take a power to make regulations to set accessibility standards for new public transport vehicles. I also announced that we proposed to incorporate within the Bill a number of measures which will ensure that providers of education give greater emphasis to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and students with learning difficulties and disabilities in planning their services. We have not yet finalised the necessary detailed changes to the Bill and therefore it is not possible to estimate the compliance costs.

  A number of other amendments were made. These are designed to clarify the Bill's provisions and accordingly impose no new costs. It is, in any case, normal practice for more detailed estimates of the cost of new measures to accompany the publication of the regulations which will implement them, but an indication of the total cost of the Bill is contained in its compliance cost assessment, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Incomes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, taking into account all available benefits, what would be the weekly income of(a) a single person, (b) a married person with a non-earning partner and (c) a married person with a non-earning partner and two children aged under 16 who was paid £3.50 an hour working (i) eight hours a week, (ii) 16 hours a week and (iii) 24 hours a week. [18082]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table. Entitlement to unemployment benefit has been assumed where this would be advantageous to the family type concerned. Earnings have also been assumed to be

  Weekly income for various family types at different hours of work

  Hours of work

  Gross earnings £

  Tax and national insurance contributions £

  Take home pay £

  Unemployment benefit £

  Income support £

  Family credit £

  Single person—aged 25 or over

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  37.88

  0.00

  0.00

  16

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  30.30

  0.00

  0.00

  24

  84.00

  7.39

  76.61

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Married couple—non-earning partner

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  61.25

  0.00

  0.00

  16

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  49.00

  0.00

  0.00

  24

  84.00

  3.84

  80.16

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Married couple—non-earning partner with two children aged 4 and 6 years

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  61.25

  10.35

  0.00

  16

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  0.00

  0.00

  66.70

  24

  84.00

  3.84

  80.16

  0.00

  0.00

  60.78

  Weekly income for various family types at different hours of work

  Child benefit £

  Rent £

  Housing benefit £

  Council tax £

  Council tax benefit £

  Total net income £

  Net income after rent and council tax £

  Single person—aged 25 or over

  0.00

  30.91

  21.04

  6.60

  3.56

  90.49

  52.98

  0.00

  30.91

  7.77

  6.00

  0.00

  94.07

  56.56

  0.00

  30.91

  14.07

  6.60

  1.42

  92.10

  54.59

  Married couple—non-earning partner

  0.00

  30.91

  26.00

  8.60

  7.09

  122.34

  82.83

  0.00

  30.91

  15.77

  8.60

  3.94

  124.71

  85.20

  0.00

  30.91

  30.91

  8.60

  8.60

  119.67

  80.16

  Married couple—non-earning partner with two children aged 4 and 6 years

  18.45

  36.42

  36.42

  11.00

  11.00

  165.47

  118.05

  18.45

  36.42

  24.65

  11.00

  7.38

  173.18

  125.76

  18.45

  36.42

  12.80

  11.00

  3.73

  175.92

  128.50

  Notes:

  1. Earnings for eight hours assumed to represent one day's employment. Earnings for 16 hours assumed to represent two day's employment.

  2. All the examples shown assume take-up of full entitlement to the income-related and contributory benefits that would be most advantageous.

  3. All the family types shown are assumed to live in local authority accommodation and be liable for average council tax and local authority rent.

  4. Earnings are assumed to be £3.50 an hour.

  1074
  for a period that would allow for the highest benefit income. Eight hours' work has been assumed to represent one day's employment and 16 hours' work has been assumed to represent two day's employment.

  To improve incentives to increase hours of work, two new measures will be introduced from October 1996. The back-to-work bonus will allow those who work part time while claiming jobseeker's allowance to build up a lump sum of up to £1,000. This will be payable when either the claimant or partner stops receiving jobseeker's allowance to go into work of 16 hours or more. In addition, a new in-work benefit aimed at couples and single people without children will be tested to examine its effects on increasing the gain from work, in the same way as family credit does now for families with children.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he proposes to make to expedite payment arrangements to nationals of the EU who have won appeals to the tribunal against denial of benefit decisions under the habitual residence test, pending his Departments appeal against the tribunal verdict; what assessment he has made of hardship arising during the waiting period for his Department's further appeal and the appropriate arrangements to cover such hardship; and if he will make a statement. [18165]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Where an adjudication officer has appealed to a social security commissioner against a decision of a social security appeal tribunal to award benefit, payment of that benefit may be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. Decisions to suspend payment are made on a case by case basis by Benefits Agency staff acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Payments of benefits should not be suspended where doing so would cause severe hardship. Statistics are not kept on the number of cases where payments are made because of hardship.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18334]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A reduction of 2,532 posts has resulted from the award of contracts to private sector organisations for work that was previously done by civil servants.

  A reduction of 993 posts has resulted from the efficiencies generated by civil servants whose bids to keep the work in-house were successful in a market test.

  War Widows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the comparative totals of pension now received by(a) war widows and (b) widows on basic benefits currently received each year for all appropriate categories. [18159]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The rate of the basic war widow's pension awarded to the widow of a man whose death was due to service in the armed forces, depends on the late husband's rank. For the widow of a private, for example, the annual equivalent rate of the basic pension1 is currently £3,897. The maximum annual pension for the widow of an officer is currently £4,621.

  In addition, for the widow of a man whose service ended before 31 March 1973, a supplementary pension is paid; the annual equivalent is currently £2,541. Age allowances of £444, £856, and £1,273 are also payable at ages 65, 70 and 80 respectively. Most war widows now receive a total war widow's pension of about £7,294 a year. All of a war widow's pension is tax free.
  1076
  Full details of the rates of war pensions and allowances are in the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order, a copy of which may be found in the Library.

  In comparison, the average pension currently received each year by a widow entitled to either widow's pension or widowed mother's allowance under the national insurance widow's benefits scheme is £2,995.
  1Normally payable weekly.

  Fraud
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the information on sector fraud referred to in the executive summary of the sector fraud report in relation to(a) central and south Derbyshire and (b) nationally in each of the last two available 12-month periods. [16162]

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about sector fraud savings in Central and South Derbyshire and nationally. The information you requested is detailed below.

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Central and South Derbyshire

  Weekly benefit savings

  4.74

  5.49

  Instrument of payment savings

  0.24

  0.34

  National Figures

  Weekly benefit savings

  487.14

  535.62

  Instrument of payment savings

  23.68

  45.1

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give details of instances, other than that of Marc Calder, where the personal details of a client of the Child Support Agency have been released publicly;
  [17093]

  (2) what are his responsibilities to clients of the Child Support Agency in relation to the holding of personal details by the agency. [17095]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. David Jamieson, dated 4 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's responsibility to maintain client confidentiality.
  The particular episode to which you refer is an isolated incident. Protecting clients' confidentiality is a cornerstone of the Agency's work, even when there is a great temptation to "put the record straight".

  1077
  Information obtained in the course of deciding an application for child support is kept in the strictest confidence. An officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State may use such information for benefit purposes, but it may not be passed to someone outside the Department of Social Security unless required, for example, by a child support appeal tribunal, or an authority dealing with housing benefit or council tax.
  The disclosure of evidence is covered by child support legislation, and it is a criminal offence to disclose information without lawful authority. If any member of staff of the Agency is found to have disclosed personal details of a client without authorisatin, this will lead to disciplinary action. This may result in prosecution and/or dismissal.

TRANSPORT

  Ship Accidents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in discussing the proposal put forward by George Livanos for a worldwide registration of ship accidents; and what consideration the International Maritime Organisation is giving to the proposal to establish a database on casualty statistics and investigations of shipping accidents by the sub-committee on flag state implementation. [17201]

  Mr. Norris
  Neither we nor the International Maritime Organisation have any record of Mr. Livano' specific proposals. The IMO sub-committee on flag state implementation is working to the construction of a casualty database as a matter of priority. A correspondence group has been established to develop the work intersessionally and will report to the next session of FSI in February 1996.

  Petrol
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of(a) benzene and (b) aromatics compounds typically present in different grades of petrol; and what is the maximum permitted by law. [17700]

  Mr. Norris
  The composition of petrol varies significantly between refineries and between batches produced by the same refinery due to the processes used and the crude oil being processed. The latest available1993—data from the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association indicates that the average percentage of benzene and aromatics, by volume, in different grades of petrol, on a sales adjusted basis, is as follows:

  Agency

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Jobs (nature)

  Taken over by contractors

  Disappeared

  Taken over by contractors

  Disappeared

  Uniformed Coastguards and administrative

  Coastguard

  nil

  nil

  nil

  16

  Driving Standards

  nil

  49

  nil

  nil

  Driving Examiners

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing1

  —

  —

  2131

  315

  Administrative

  1078

  Percentage by volume

  Petrol

  4 star leaded

  Unleaded premium

  Unleaded super

  Benzene

  2.12

  2.46

  3.08

  Aromatics

  31

  33

  42

  Benzene is controlled at a maximum of 5 per cent. by EC directive F5/210/EEC. There is no maximum limit for aromatics.

  British Rail (Consultants)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which consultants his Department has appointed to advise on the information systems implications of rail privatisation; when they were appointed; and what was the value of the contracts. [18086]

  Mr. Watts
  Ernst and Young was appointed on 8 June 1993 to advise on the overall programme management of information systems to support the restructured railway industry. Information about the value of individual contracts is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which consultants have been engaged by British Rail in the last three years to advise on information systems; on what dates they were appointed; and what was the value of the contracts. [18085]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand from British Rail since 1993–94 the following consultants have been engaged to advise on information systems: Andersons Consulting, AD Little, Focus on Research, Forecast, Gemini, Holmes and Marchant, IMPAC, INDECO, Price Waterhouse, Touche Ross and TQM. Information on consultants prior to that year is not readily available. Information about the value of individual contracts is commercially confidential.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received(a) formally and (b) informally in each of the past nine months in favour of claims for slots at Heathrow made by (i) United Airlines and (ii) American Airlines from (1) the airlines, (2) lobbyists and (3) hon. Members. [18081]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I receive numerous representations concerning UK-US air services. The allocations of slots at Heathrow remains the responsibility of the independent Airport Co-ordination Ltd.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18335]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is given in the table:
  1079

  Agency

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Jobs (nature)

  Taken over by contractors

  Disappeared

  Taken over by contractors

  Disappeared

  Highways

  nil

  nil

  nil

  72

  —

  Marine safety

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  —

  Transport Research Laboratory

  —

  384

  —

  3107

  Scientific, industrial and administrative

  Vehicle Certification

  nil

  nil

  1

  1

  Administrative

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  nil

  nil

  16

  84

  Administrative, professional and technical

  Notes:

  1 Posts reduced as a result of "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730, the reporting of which does not accord with financial years. total reductions over the two financial years are shown in the table against 1994–95.

  2 Includes 123 posts which were market tested and work won by contractors.

  3 Reduction in posts reflects decline in demand for TRL services and contracting out work previously undertaken in-house; not possible to separately identify post reductions due to contracting-out activities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of equal opportunity courses attended since beginning their appointment for each chief executive currently employed by his Department. [17891]

  Mr. Norris
  Three agency chief executives attended an equal opportunities seminar in autumn 1994. General management courses attended by agency chief executives during their careers will have included equal opportunities training.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct the Scottish rail users consultative committee, under the terms of section 78 of the Railways Act 1993, to consider the proposed withdrawal of the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin ferry service, subject to the relevant provisions of section 56 of the Transport Act 1962; and if he will make a statement. [18164]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) made a direction under section 78 of the Railways Act 1993 on 9 May 1994. The effect was to allow the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland to continue to exercise its functions under section 56(4) to (6) of the Transport Act 1962 in relation to ferry services provided by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.

  Public Bodies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the appointments he has made to non-departmental bodies. [17892]

  Mr. Norris
  Most of the appointments made by my right hon. Friend to non-departmental bodies are listed in "Public Bodies 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Appointments are also made by my right hon. Friend to port authorities, the acting conservator of the River Mersey and to the honorary medical advisory panels.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what limitations there are on the number of passengers permitted to stand on(a) single-deck and (b) double deck passenger vehicles (i) in general public service and (ii) hired by education authorities for the transport of pupils. [17834]
  1080
  Mr. Norris
  The number of passengers permitted to stand on a public service vehicle either single or double deck, is usually determined as part of the issue of a certificate of initial fitness or certificate of conformity for the individual vehicle.

  Some older PSVs, however, were not issued with such certificates, in these cases the number of standing passengers permitted is one third of the seating capacity, in the lower deck only for double-deck vehicles, or eight passengers, whichever is the less. Standing is not permitted on the upper deck of any PSV.

  These requirements apply to all PSVs including those hired by education authorities.

  Passenger Service Requirements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how British rail operators will be penalised for ignoring the new passenger service requirements.
  [17366]

  Mr. Watts
  Franchise operators will enter into a contract with the franchising director through the franchise agreement, which will require them to operate the services specified in the passenger service requirement. If operators do not deliver a timetable compliant with PSR, the franchising director may impose penalties, or, as a last resort, terminate the franchise agreement.

  In respect of the first four franchises for which PSRs have been developed, British Rail confirmed at the time of the PSR consultation that its operators will continue to operate the existing level of service until such time as services are franchised to the private sector. The PSR is based broadly on the existing BR timetable.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to inform the public of the new passenger service requirements; and what procedure they must follow in complaints about any operator not following the passenger service requirements. [17367]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director is currently considering the responses to a comprehensive consultation with rail users consultative committees and local authorities about the first four proposed passenger service requirements. These represent the detailed contractual framework within which operators must draw up their passenger timetable. Operators will be under an obligation
  1081
  to publish comprehensive information about their timetable.

  Operators must submit to the franchising director details of their proposed timetable. The franchising director will ensure that these are compliant with the PSR and will also monitor the actual services run. The franchising director may impose penalties if the PSR is not delivered. If passengers have complaints about services, these should be directed in the first instance to the train operator, and if they remain dissatisfied they should refer to the appropriate RUCC.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when all railways will be given passenger service requirements; and if they will be managed uniformly. [17368]

  Mr. Watts
  A passenger service requirement will be included in each franchise agreement that the franchising director makes with a franchise operator for the provision of passenger services. The franchising director has a statutory objective to franchise passenger services as soon as is reasonably practicable, and has a target to franchise at least 51 per cent. of passenger services by April 1996. He is currently developing a performance regime that will apply to all franchise operators.

  Publicity
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates of for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17640]

  Mr. Norris
  The spending by my Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and the latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (estimatė)

  (a) TV

  5,052

  4,193

  4,335

  n/a

  (b) Radio

  633

  0

  0

  n/a

  (c) Press (includes recruitment)

  592

  506

  392

  n/a

  (d) Other

  0

  7

  130

  n/a

  (e) Total

  6,277

  4,706

  4,857

  n/a

  (f) Recruitment (percentage of total)

  18.2

  29.8

  35.5

  3274,821

  1 Includes some or all costs for all agencies except the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  2 Includes all costs for the Highways Agency, Coastguard and Marine Safety Agency.

  3 Includes all costs for the Central Transport Group, and senior staff in executive agencies at G5 level and above.

  Expenditure plans by media for 1995–96 are not yet finalised.

  Above figures exclude statutory advertising and advertising on road schemes.

  Plutonium Nitrate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority a copy of the full review of plutonium nitrate transport to which he referred in his answer of 2 November 1994,Official Report, column 1123. [17962]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has recently been notified that the full review report, which includes the executive summary, is now available. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

WALES

  Trunk Road Agencies
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusions he has reached on the pattern of trunk road agencies following local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [18811]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Transition committees were invited to submit proposals for new trunk road agencies to replace the existing eight agencies after April 1996. Proposals were received from nine transition committees or groups of transition committees. These have been assessed and I have decided to appoint eight new agencies arranged geographically to give the minimum change from the present agency boundaries. This I believe will be welcomed in reducing disruption to staff and working procedures during the reorganisation.

  I have selected the following proposals:
  North East Wales—the proposal from the transition committees of Aberconwy and Colwyn, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham acting in partnership for the trunk roads in the area covering the present county of Clwyd plus Aberconwy.
  North West Wales—the proposal from Caernarfonshire and Merionnethshire transition committee and supported by Anglesey transition committee but amended to exclude the trunk roads in the Aberconwy and Colwyn unitary authority for the trunk roads in the area covering the present county of Gwynedd less Aberconwy.
  Mid Wales—the proposal from Powys transition committee for the trunk roads in the area of the present county of Powys.
  West Wales—the proposal from Carmarthenshire transition committee, supported by Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire transition committees for the trunk roads in the area covering the present county of Dyfed.
  West Glamorgan—I have selected the proposal from Neath and Port Talbot transition committee in preference to the proposal from County of Swansea transition committee for the trunk road and motorway in the area covering the present county of West Glamorgan.
  Mid Glamorgan—the joint proposal from Bridgend, Rhondda. Cynon Taff and Merthyr Tydfil transition committees for the trunk roads and motorway in the area covering the present county of Mid Glamorgan.
  South Glamorgan—the proposal from Cardiff transition committee for the trunk roads and motorway in the area covering the present county of South Glamorgan.
  Gwent—the joint proposal from Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire, Newport and Torfaen transition committees for the trunk roads and motorways in the area covering the present county of Gwent.

  Shadow authorities, when formed, will be asked to confirm their acceptance of the proposed agencies, to produce service delivery plans for detailed consideration by the Welsh Office, and to agree with the Welsh Office

  1083
  the terms of the new agency agreements to take effect from 1 April 1996.

  I shall be reviewing the arrangements 12 months after their introduction and assessing their adequacy and viability particularly where the agencies have a relatively small trunk road mileage.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to ensure that patients in mental hospitals are allocated to wards on the basis of the severity of their illnesses rather than on their places of residence. [18080]

  Mr. Richards
  The responsibility for determining the level of need and the provision of appropriate services rests entirely with local health authorities. The decision to admit a patient to a specific hospital ward is a clinical one, taken at a local level and based on the needs of the individual.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 343, concerning dentists in Gwynedd, how many of the general dental practitioners in Gwynedd on 31 December 1994 were (a) taking on new NHS patients and (b) treating adults on the NHS; and what was the corresponding number of dentists in Gwynedd on 31 December in each of the preceding five years. [17343]

  Mr. Richards
  Information is not held centrally on the number of dental practitioners taking on new NHS patients or specifically treating adults on the NHS at any given time. The number of practitioners in Gwynedd treating NHS patients, of any age, in each year from 1989 to 1993 was as follows:

  1Number of practitioners

  30 September 1989

  66

  30 September 1990

  69

  31 December 1991

  63

  31 December 1992

  63

  31 December 1993

  67

  1 Principals, assistants and voacational trainees.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many family health services authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in each month since April 1991. [17393]

  Mr. Richards
  From information supplied by family health services authorities since August 1992, emergency dental services have operated in all Welsh authority areas except Dyfed. There was a period up to May 1993 when Gwynedd family health services authority was also unable to arrange such a clinic.

  General dental practitioners provide emergency cover for their registered patients under their terms of service.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the increase or decrease in the number of dentists in each of the family health services authority areas in Wales between 1985 and 1995. [18270]
  1084
  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the table:

  1Number of general dental practitioners

  FHSA area

  30 September 1985

  31 December 1994

  Change

  Clwyd

  87

  119

  +32

  Dyfed

  80

  104

  +24

  Gwent

  109

  140

  +31

  Gwynedd

  65

  66

  +1

  Mid Glamorgan

  119

  123

  +4

  Powys

  30

  34

  +4

  South Glamorgan

  129

  134

  +5

  West Glamorgan

  123

  130

  +7

  1 Principals, assistants and vocational trainees. Dentists working in more than 1 FHSA are counted in the FHSA where the majority of their work is performed.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received during the past 12 months concerning NHS dental services in Gwynedd; what steps he has taken over that period to overcome the problem; and what has been the effect of these steps. [18301]

  Mr. Richards
  In the past 12 months 93 representations have been received about dental services in Gwynedd, including 57 from Members of Parliament. During the same period the Gwynedd family health services authority has received nearly £7,000 to cover the cost of local initiatives aimed at increasing NHS dental provision. A location incentive grant has also been agreed by the Welsh Office to assist a dentist to open a new practice in Dolgellau.

  The Welsh Office has also provided a grant of £50,000 to the health authority to enable it to purchase extra community dental sessions and continues to support the Gwynedd family health services authority salaried dental service. On 30 January, my right hon. Friend announced that he is making a further £2.5 million available to improve dental services in the community.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what was(a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of remuneration paid by his Department to full-time general dental practitioners in Wales during the most recent year for which figures are available. [18272]

  Mr. Richards
  General dental practitioners are independent contractors paid, in the main, on an item-of-service basis. The concept of "full time" does not therefore apply and information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists there are currently being trained in the University of Wales; and what assessment he made of whether this number is adequate to meet demand. [18303]

  Mr. Richards
  There are 117 dental students in Wales. Following the last review of medical and dental manpower there was an expansion of 20 per cent. at the Welsh dental school compared with a reduction of 10 per cent. elsewhere. The Welsh dental school is now at full capacity. Dental manpower is assessed on a UK basis and the present manpower strategy is based upon the recommendations of the dental strategy review group which reported in 1982. The situation is being kept under review.
  1085
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many salaried dentists there were employed in each of the family health services authority areas in Wales on 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [18271]

  Mr. Richards
  Three salaried general dental practitioners were employed on 31 March 1995, one each by Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys family health services authorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when did he last met representatives of the British Dental Association to discuss problems relating to NHS dentistry in Wales; and what was the outcome of such discussions. [18302]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has not previously met representatives of the British Dental Association but has indicated his willingness to meet representatives of the profession in Wales at an appropriate time, if requested. Welsh Office officials maintain regular contact with those representatives.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure by his Department on NHS dentistry services in the county of Gwynedd in each of the past five years. [18304]

  Number of new registrations

  Health authority area of residence

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  11

  11

  11

  7

  9

  11

  9

  7

  8

  13

  13

  East Dyfed

  3

  1

  5

  3

  6

  2

  7

  4

  5

  5

  7

  Gwent

  6

  10

  12

  5

  14

  8

  12

  6

  10

  9

  12

  Gwynedd

  3

  4

  1

  2

  4

  6

  6

  5

  2

  2

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  11

  9

  5

  5

  6

  7

  9

  9

  8

  11

  11

  Pembrokeshire

  2

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  6

  5

  6

  4

  2

  Powys

  3

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  7

  2

  —

  South Glamorgan

  10

  6

  6

  10

  9

  8

  11

  5

  6

  9

  7

  West Glamorgan

  4

  4

  5

  7

  6

  7

  3

  9

  11

  10

  6

  Wales

  53

  49

  46

  41

  57

  49

  66

  51

  63

  65

  65

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of children in nursery schools in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17399]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of children in maintained nursery schools in each county in Wales, as at January 1994, is as follows:

  Part time

  Full time

  Clwyd

  195

  —

  Dyfed

  70

  121

  Gwent

  825

  90

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  426

  793

  Powys

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  811

  21

  West Glamorgan

  230

  —

  Wales

  2,557

  1,025

  Source:

  Schools Census, January 1994.
  1086
  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Expenditure on NHS dentistry services in Gwynedd

  £000

  1989–90

  2.537

  1990–91

  3.031

  1991–92

  3.623

  1992–93

  5.115

  1993–94

  4.787

  Source:

  Family health services authority, district health authority and dental practice board statistics accounts.

  Thyroid Cancer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of thyroid cancer were reported in each of the health authorities in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and what the average was for Wales in each of those years. [17136]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Rheumatology Services
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the proposed rheumatology service for Gwent following the withdrawal of one of the consultants. [17419]

  Mr. Richards
  The provision of this service is a matter for Gwent Health Commission and its providers. However, I understand that interviews for a replacement consultant rheumatologist will be held this month. Gwent Health Commission assures me that arrangements have been put in place to provide consultant cover until this post is filled, so that the quality and level of service will not suffer.

  Health Service (Patient Choice)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to ensure that Mrs. Griffin's children can be treated for chemical poisoning at the Breakspeare hospital; and if he will make a statement. [17381]
  1087
  Mr. Richards
  This is not a matter in which it is appropriate for me to become involved. Hospital referrals are a matter for the clinical judgment of the general practitioner, and are arranged in conjunction with the relevant health authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his policy concerning the wish of patients to join or remain on the list of a general practitioner; and if he will make a statement; [17383]

  (2) if he will consult the Clwyd family health services authority to ensure that Mrs. Griffin of Bockley might be enabled to remain on the list of a general practitioner of her choice; if he will meet Mrs. Griffin; and if he will make a statement. [17382]

  Mr. Richards
  The family health services authority is responsible for managing general medical services in its area, and no useful purpose would be served by the meeting proposed.

  Patients have the right to join the list of any GP willing to accept them. Doctors, as independent contractors, have the right to remove patients from their practice list without being required to offer an explanation. Patients also have the right to withdraw from a doctor's list without giving reasons. This is because it is considered essential to the practice of good medicine that a doctor and patient have mutual trust and confidence in each other.

  Patients who are unable to find a doctor willing to accept them on their list can be allocated to a GP by the family health services authority.

  Prescribing Costs
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice the Welsh Office has given on indicative budgets for general practitioners in Gwent. [17412]

  Mr. Richards
  The Department's letter of 31 January 1995 to family health services authorities in Wales gave guidance on the allocation of resources for GP prescribing in 1995–96. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average spending on drugs by(a) fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in the latest available quarter. [17394]

  Mr. Richards
  Information for the quarter ending 31 December 1994 is as follows:

  Average cost per patient per quarter £

  Fundholders

  20.15

  Non fundholders

  22.41

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions there have been between the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office and the Regional Commissioner of the European Community concerning possible grant allocations to the Welsh Development Agency and the principle of additionality; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of such discussions. [17697]
  1088
  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no such discussions but Welsh Office officials meet regularly with the WDA to discuss a wide range of issues, including financial matters.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department approved the redundancy cost for the 19 staff previously employed by the Welsh Development Agency's small firms service and youth training scheme sections, as provided for in point 8 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 1991–92 accounts; and under what statutory authority the payments were authorised. [18169]

  Mr. Redwood
  Redundancy costs were approved on 21 February and 14 March 1991 respectively.

  The agency may make redundancy compensation payments under schedule 1 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department approved the redundancy cost for the staff previously employed by the Welsh Development Agency's utility services function, as provided for in point 8 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General's commentary on the 1991–92 accounts; and under what statutory authority the payments were authorised. [18168]

  Mr. Redwood
  The costs of transferring these services, which included but did not separately identify redundancy costs, were agreed on 27 March 1990.

  The agency may make redundancy compensation payments under schedule 1 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to await the conclusion of an enabling agreement by the Nurses and Midwives Negotiating Council before promoting any local pay settlements for nurses; and if he will make a statement. [17869]

  Mr. Richards
  NHS trusts have freedom to negotiate local deals. However, an enabling provision in the national terms and conditions of service will facilitate local pay bargaining.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the administrative costs borne by the NHS in Wales under the present national pay bargaining system; what estimate he has made of the likely level of comparable costs under localised pay bargaining; and if he will make a statement. [18249]

  Mr. Redwood
  Localised pay bargaining costs will be contained within existing management resources.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the level of pay increases(a) awarded and (b) offered to (i) chief executives of NHS trusts and health authorities in Wales, (ii) managerial staff generally and (iii) accounts staff in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [18247]

  Mr. Redwood
  NHS trusts have the freedom to determine their own pay arrangements; information on the level of pay increase is not available for staff who have opted for such terms. Salaries of chief executives will be published in trusts' annual reports with effect from 1 April 1995. Chief executives of health authorities had an increase of 2.2 per cent. pay with effect from 1 September
  1089
  1994 and are entitled to a supplement reflecting individual performance.

  Managerial and accounts staff retaining national terms received a 2.2 per cent. pay rise from 1 September 1994 and are also entitled to individual performance related supplements.

  Negotiations are under way for the 1995 pay round.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18337]

  Mr. Redwood
  Cadw has contracted two jobs to the private sector. Its staff numbers fell by 32 between 31 March 1993 and 31 March 1995.

  NHS Research and Development
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to advertise for the post and appoint a new director of research and development for the national health service in Wales. [18167]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on Monday 3 April 1995,Official Report Column 975.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date of the departure of the former director of research and development for the national health service in Wales, Mr. Ian Russell; and what factors led to the delay in appointing a successor. [18166]

  Mr. Richards
  Professor Ian Russell departed from his post as director of the office of research and development NHS Wales on 31 December 1994. The opportunity has been taken to review the future function and setting of the office of research and development. These have now been agreed.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Local Government Management Board regarding central funding for reorganisation appeals; if he will make it his policy to introduce funding in full for such appeals; and if he will make a statement. [18241]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no such representations. I have no plans to provide funding for appeals on staffing matters which result from local government reorganisation. The revenue settlement for 1995–96 takes account of a number of reorganisation costs, such as these, which will fall to local authorities.

  Radiological Protection
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Health and Safety Executive concerning the discontinuation of the forms KH 10a, b and c as regards the monitoring to adequate standards and statutory requirements of radiological protection for patients and staff. [18245]

  Mr. Redwood
  It was not necessary to consult the Health and Safety Executive before dropping these forms. The responsibility for maintaining adequate standards and meeting statutory requirements for the radiological 1090
  protection of patients and staff is the responsibility of the district health authority or trust. The Welsh Office will shortly be issuing guidance to the health service in Wales setting out statutory requirements and general advice on the use of ionising radiation.

  Stillbirths and Infant Deaths
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the relative merits of(a) the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy statistical exercise and (b) the discontinued form LHS 27/1; if he will list the principal points of difference between the two; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in Wales is a detailed study of deaths of babies after the onset of labour and within the first two weeks of life where the birthweight was greater than 1499 grammes and there and there was no gross or life-threatening abnormality. It seeks to inform and improve clinical practice by increasing the understanding of ways in which numbers of deaths might be diminished, with particular regard to identifying departures from accepted standards of care which could have played a part in the ensuing death.

  The discontinued LHS 27/1 return simply recorded the total number of live births and stillbirths to residents of the district health authority and births, stillbirths and deaths in the first 28 days, analysed by weight. It was discontinued as the central requirements that it covered were available routinely from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Kwiksave, Prestatyn
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he intends to make to Kwiksave with regard to their consultation on the closure of their Prestatyn depot and the transfer of jobs to England. [18238]

  Mr. Richards
  Kwiksave is keeping me informed on the proposed closure of its distribution depot at Prestatyn, which represents a loss of 20 per cent. of the work force at the site. Targed is also aware of the proposal and stands ready to do all that it can to ensure that any future training needs are catered for.

  While all job losses are regrettable, Kwiksave will nevertheless remain a major employer in Prestatyn and in north Wales.

  Non-teaching Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority all categories of non-teaching staff employed(a) in schools and (b) outside schools, indicating which are considered to be administrative staff; and what is the ratio to teachers. [17653]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Numbers of non-teaching staff in schools are collected through the annual schools census. The following list shows the categories of staff for which information is collected by type of school. Information about numbers in each category is available from each local education authority.
  1091
  Nursery

  Class I nursery assistants

  Class II nursery assistants

  NNEB students in training

  Permanent supply nursery assistants

  Primary

  NNEB qualified nursery assistants

  NNEB students in training

  Other assistants/aides employed in the class room

  Clerical/office workers

  Secondary

  Special needs support staff (including ancillary sessional workers)

  Laboratory or workshop technicians

  Resource technicians

  Nurses/matrons

  Office or clerical staff including library assistants

  Special

  Qualified nursing/childcare staff

  Unqualified nursing/child care staff

  Qualified ancillary staff

  Unqualified ancillary staff

  The Local Government Management Board collects information about local authority staff employed outside schools. Figures are compiled of the number of full-time and part-time non-manual staff employed in the education service, other than lecturers and teachers. This category comprises all non-manual staff identified as employed within the education service and includes administrative, secretarial and clerical staff, youth and community workers, nursery and other non-teaching classroom assistants, library staff serving educational establishments, education psychologists and careers guidance staff. Figures for individual education authorities are not released into the public domain because estimates at this level of disaggregation are not considered sufficiently reliable by the LGMB.

  Pupils aged 151 achieving GCSE grade A (A*)—C

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Number of pupils

  Per cent. of age group

  Number of pupils

  Per cent. of age group

  Number of pupils

  Per cent. of age group

  English2

  14,398

  42.4

  13,717

  42.8

  14,924

  46.2

  Mathematics

  11,568

  34.1

  11,645

  36.3

  12,834

  39.7

  Science3

  11,972

  35.3

  12,123

  37.8

  12,476

  38.6

  Combination4

  8,650

  25.5

  8,227

  25.7

  9,256

  28.6

  Notes:

  1 Pupils aged 15 at August 31 of previous year.

  2 Includes pupils' better result of English language and literature.

  3 Includes pupils' best science result.

  4 Pupils achieving the combinations of mathematics, science and english GCSEs grades A(*)—C. Includes pupils' best result in science and the better result of English first language and Welsh first language. Figures for the combination of mathematics, science and english alone are not available.

  Source:

  Welsh examinations database.

DEFENCE

  Base Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the Army's Base Storage and Distribution Organsiation. [18855]
  1092
  The use of different terminology defining the categories used in the schools census forms means that it is not possible to eliminate double counting of the same people in the LGMB figure and the school census results. A ratio of administrative staff to teachers can therefore not be calculated.

  North East Wales Institute
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total cost of(a) the Touche Ross report into the financial affairs of the North East Wales Institute commissioned by the Higher Education Funding council for Wales, (b) the subsequent Touche Ross report entitled "NEWI Outline Structure Recovery Plan" and (c) the work undertaken to date with regard to NEWI by Mr. Fuller of Touche Ross and his associates. [17861]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The report commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales cost £45,237. The subsequent report and the consultancy work were commissioned and paid for by NEWI and the cost of these is a matter for the Institute.

  Examination Achievements
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils in each of the last three years have gained grades A to C in English, Mathematics and Science, and what percentage this was of the year group. [17992]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The following table shows the number of 15-year-old pupils in Wales who gained grades A to C in 1992 and 1993, and those who gained A*—C in 1994, in the specified GCSE subjects. Percentages are calculated on the basis of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year, as it is not known in which year group examination candidates are taught.

  Mr. Soames
  The Army's Base Storage and Distribution Organisation will become a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence on 4 April 1995. The agency will be responsible for storing and distributing a vast range of general and technical stores, ammunition and vehicles and fuels to meet the Army's requirements in peace, crisis and war. In addition, the agency will provide a training environment for field Army personnel to gain
  1093
  the skills in storage and distribution functions to operate logistic bases in combat zones and theatres of operations.

  The agency, to be known as the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency will comprise a small headquarters at Andover which will manage the operation of seven base storage depots in the United Kingdom, together with their supporting distribution outlets, and three base storage depots in Germany. The agency currently employs some 5,700 civilian staff and 600 military personnel.

  As the first chief executive, Brigadier K. J. W. Goad will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. Through a more commercial approach, the chief executive will actively seek to improve the efficiency of his organisation and thereby fulfil the agency's aim of providing its customers with an efficient service which offers the best value for money. The chief executive has been set the following key targets for financial year 1995–96:

  1. Deliver to customers by the required delivery date at least 99 per cent. immediate, 98 per cent. high priority, 97 per cent. medium priority and 95 per cent. routine demands.

  2. Deliver a military logistic support capability which the field Army can deploy worldwide, meeting at least a satisfactory opeval standard.

  3. Introduce by 31 March 1996 formal tasking agreements with main ABSDA customers, and establish performance standards and annual targets for service improvement.

  4. Complete by 31 March 1996 a competing for quality review of £5,000,000 (operating costs) of ABSDA business activities.

  5. Achieve by 31 March 1996 a further 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  6. Close by 31 March 1996 17 storage depots in accordance with the programme endorsed by the defence costs study.

  7. Introduce accruals accounting during the first year of operation and produce a set of "shadow" accounts for 1995–96.

  8. Define by 31 March 1996 ABSDA's future financial and business information needs as a statement of requirement for a corporate management information system.

  I shall arrange for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the house.

  Transport and Movements Executive
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Directorate of Transport and Movements (Army). [18856]

  Mr. Soames
  The Directorate of Transport and Movements (Army) will become a Defence Agency of the Ministry of Defence on 4 April 1995 when its name will change to the Defence Transport and Movements Executive. As a fully rationalised tri-service organisation, the main focus of DTMX will continue to be concentrated at its headquarters at Andover, alongside the Quartermaster General's headquarters. It will in due course absorb the surface freight functions carried out by the Navy Department, Air Force Department and the MOD Procurement Executive. The agency has other assets and personnel located at Marchwood military port, Bicester international freight terminal and the Ministry of Defence main building. In all there are some 250 staff comprising 92 military and 158 civilian.

  The role of the agency is to provide an agreed transport and movements service for the world-wide support of HM armed forces, the MOD and other Government Departments and sponsored organisations. In so doing, it will meet the appropriate operational logistic support
  1094
  requirements in peacetime, crisis, transition to war and war for all its customers within agreed standards by the most efficient and cost-effective means available.

  As the first chief executive, Brigadier M.G.R. Hodson CBE will be afforded greater responsibility and flexibility to build on the current organisation's professional ability and reputation for excellence. This in turn will provide the framework and ethos to give him the essential delegations and autonomy to interface effectively with industry whilst still retaining the military control necessary for policy and planning, which is so essential to mount military operations in any theatre. By adopting a more commercial approach, the chief executive will strive to improve efficiency and value for money and by so doing fulfil the agency's requirement to manage and control an effective operational transport and movements system that supports and sustains the armed forces world wide, while offering best value for money.

  The chief executive has been set the following challenging key targets for the first year of operation:

  1. To confirm and satisfy the operational requirement through the achievement of a satisfactory operational evaluation.

  2. To develop with the owner by August 1995 criteria to measure DTMX's fitness for its wide peacetime transport and movements role.

  3. To provide an agreed transport and movements service which meets the standard priority system requirements, as laid down in Department regulations (JSP 336), to time in 95 per cent. of cases.

  4. To implement the agency's competing for quality strategy including specifically:

  a. To investigate partnering for Falkland Islands resupply by 1 December 1995.

  b. To complete the statement of requirement for the tri-service freight distribution market test by November 1995 and issue invitation for tender by January 1996.

  5. To introduce a system for accruals accounting by:

  a. Developing an accounts feeder system and interim accruals accounting system by 1 September 1995 prior to the introduction of the ASCOT accruals accounting system by 31 March 1996.

  b. Producing accruals accounts for 1995–96 for a shadow NAO audit in order to produce accruals accounts for 1996–97 for a full NATO audit.

  6. To reduce by 2 per cent. annually the ratio of DTMX management overheads compared to the total value of overall business.

  7. To identify the potential utilisation and throughput at Marchwood military port and 25 Squadron Royal Logistic Corps, Bicester in order to provide a base line against which future targets can be set for the utilisation of owned assets.

  8. To complete the initial development, basic installation and staff training for the DTMX management information system and activity-based costing system as defined in the IS strategy by 31 March 1996.

  9. To introduce by 31 March 1996 service level agreements with the main DTMX customers and suppliers and establish performance standards and annual targets for service delivery and improvement.

  I shall arrange for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rescue Co-ordination Centre
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future location of the rescue co-ordination centre Pitreavie and Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland. [18857]

  Mr. Soames
  As a consequence of the "Front Line First" recommendation to close the maritime headquarters
  1095
  at Pitreavie by April 1996, it was originally intended to relocate the rescue co-ordination centre and Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland to RAF Leuchars. Subsequent studies have, however, identified that substantial operational advantages and cost savings would be gained by relocating RCC Pitreavie to RAF Kinloss, which would subsequently become the home for the new, single national military rescue co-ordination centre by 31 March 1997. The proposed relocation of RCC Pitreavie to RAF Kinloss, which would involve the transfer of 36 posts, 30 service and six civilian, will be subject to the usual process of consultation with the trade unions. AOSNI and his staff will relocate from Pitreavie to RAF Leuchars as originally planned, at which time the post will be combined with that of station commander.

  Sub-strategic Nuclear Capability
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's sub-strategic nuclear capability. [18913]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1993 the Government announced that in the longer term we would utilise the flexibility of the Trident system to under take the sub-strategic as well as the strategic nuclear role. I am pleased to say that the arrangements for this are progressing well. The Trident system will provide a continuously available sub-strategic capability when the second submarine—HMS Victorious—joins the patrol cycle around the end of this year, and the capability will be fully robust when HMS Vigilant enters service in 1998. In the light of this we have decided that the WE177 free-fall bomb should be withdrawn from service by the end of 1998.

  Seized Documents
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the practice of his Department in respect of the classification of documents as company documents; and if the documents referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 554, as company documents were the personal copy of a director of board minutes and related documents. [17009]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding reply 28 March 1995]: I have nothing further to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 21 July 1994, Official Report, column 554.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which minister authorised the raid by the Ministry of Defence police on the officers of British Manufacture and Research Company in April 1990; who now has possession of the documents seized; when he expects that the documents; will be returned to the former chairman; and if he will make a statement. [18242]

  Mr. Soames
  No ministerial approval was either needed or given. The Ministry of Defence police were acting properly within their legal powers to pursue a criminal investigation and it would have been quite improper for Ministers to intervene. The documents seized were returned to the official receivers in June 1993. They were all regarded as company documents and treated as such throughout the Ministry of Defence police investigation.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department took possession of 1096
  documents taken from the company BMARC; on what date these documents were handed over to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list the Ministers who had access to these documents within his Department. [18300]

  Mr. Soames
  Documents from Astra/BMARC premises were seized by Ministry of Defence Police on several occasions between March and August 1990. These were not MOD-owned documents and were returned to the receivers of Astra in June 1993. The question of the provision of any of these documents to the Scott inquiry is one for the receivers of the inquiry. No Minister had access to the documents which had been seized by the Ministry of Defence police for the purposes of an investigation into alleged corruption.

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [17036]

  Mr. Soames
  An analysis of the legislation sponsored by my Department and its predecessors since 1965 for references to hon. Members could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Although officers of state are regularly mentioned in legislation, it would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member.

  Chemical and Biological Substances
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to instigate a study into the long-term health effects of exposure to chemical and biological substances. [17288]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no evidence that either civilian or service personnel have been exposed to harmful levels of chemical and biological substances which would justify such a study.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the differences between the position adopted by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Australia and (d) Canada in respect of Government provision for ex-service men exposed to chemical and biological substances. [17284]

  Mr. Soames
  No formal assessment has been made, but legal, health and welfare provisions are known to differ. Not all countries have a national health service; and not all countries' laws allow their citizens, including serving and former members of the armed forces, to pursue legal action through the courts for damages against the state. In the UK, in addition to the above and to the comprehensive system of social security benefits, the Department of Social Security makes provision for war pensions under which former service personnel who suffer an injury or illness which is attributable to service, howsoever caused or by whatever agent, may be entitled to a pension or gratuity.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's investigation of farm workers exposed to organic phosphates in drawing up its own evaluations of the effects of exposure to chemical or biological weapons. [17286]
  1097
  Mr. Soames
  The structure and purpose of organophosphorous nerve agents differ significantly from those of organophosphorous sheep dips. Nerve agents are intended to produce immediate acute effects and can kill in minutes. They principally attack the body through the respiratory system, although some also attack through the skin. For full effect, the nerve agent will need to vaporise over time and result in a downwind hazard. On the other hand, organophosphorous sheep dips have a much reduced mammalian toxicity and there is no requirement for the material to vaporise over time as the route of attack is through contact with the insects. Sheep dip compounds have extremely low volatility, thus rendering any inhalation exposure insignificant. The assessment made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into alleged health problems experienced by farm workers, therefore, have little relevance to the effects of exposure to chemical or biological weapons.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's liaison with(a) the USA, (b) Canada and (c) Australia in respect of studies of chemical weapons and defences against their use since 1965. [17289]

  Mr. Soames
  There are a number of agreements with NATO allies covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment. The following international agreements include chemical and biological defence in their scope:

  a. The United Kingdom, United States and Canada memorandum of understanding on chemical and biological defence with addresses research, development, production and procurement of chemical and biological defence equipment. This was signed in 1980 and has been an extremely effective means of ensuring close collaboration between the three countries.

  b. NATO army armaments group panel VII on nuclear, biological and chemical defence and its sub-panels and working groups which are the main NATO forums. CB defence is also discussed by other NATO panels and by the NATO defence research group.

  c. The United Kingdom-United States-Canada-Australia American, British and Canadian Armies agreement between the Armies of the four countries. This includes a group known as the Quadrupartite Working Group which has a panel on NBC defence.

  d. The United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia air standardisation co-ordinating committee agreement which also has a sub-group addressing CB defence.

  e. The United Kingdom and United States navies have an information exchange agreement which includes NBC defence in its scope.

  f. The technical co-operation programme which involves the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is concerned with collaboration in defence research and has a sub-group that is active on CB defence.

  g. The Anglo-French defence research group allows the exchange of information and collaboration on research for CB defence.

  h. The Anglo-Netherlands-Norwegian collaboration project exchange of information and collaboration on research for CB defence.

  i. FINABEL, an army-army agreement covering CB defence information exchange between Britain, France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Belgium.

  1098
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will instigate a compensation scheme similar to that of the United States for former service men and volunteers exposed to chemical and biological weapons. [17285]

  Mr. Soames
  Any person who is disabled by an injury or illness due to service in her Majesty's forces may be entitled to a gratuity or a pension under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons Porton Down volunteers are denied the use of Ministry of Defence medical facilities to investigate their ill health with particular reference to long-term health effects of exposure to organic phosphates. [17287]

  Mr. Soames
  The role of the defence medical services is to train armed forces medical personnel and to provide a health care service for serving members of the armed forces. Responsibility for the health care of those who have left the armed forces rests with the national health service. With regard to Porton Down volunteers, my Department has no evidence that participation in human volunteer studies over the last 40 years has resulted in any long-term adverse health effects.

  Defence Attachés
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the methods of appointments of defence attachés in embassies. [17238]

  Mr. Soames
  None

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government have decided on the appointment of a financial advisor to carry forward the sale of the married quarter estate. [17349]

  Mr. Soames
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 22 March,Official Report, columns 216–18, we intend to develop proposals for the possible transfer of the married quarters estate to the private sector, on the basis of initial work undertaken for us last autumn by NatWest Markets. We are close to completing the competitive selection of financial advisers to assist us in this process.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1994,Official Report, column 819, when he now expects the surplus married quarters in Lacey street, Northumberland to be (a) sold or (b) made available for housing purposes. [18239]

  Mr. Soames
  Twelve surplus married quarters in Lacey street, Longhoughton, have been advertised for sale through the services discount scheme. The remaining 14 properties will be offered for sale in the same way if sufficient interest is demonstrated during the sale of the first phase. Any properties not taken up under the scheme will be offered for sale either to a housing association or on the open market.

  Air Miss, Humberside
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, from what squadron and from what base were the
  1099
  four Royal Air Tornados that were involved in an air miss with an Air UK Fokker 50, 20 miles east of Ottringham, Humberside on 22 March; if he will send the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the accident report when it is published; and if he will make a statement. [17133]

  Mr. Soames
  This incident is under investigation by National Air Traffic Services. A report will be produced in due course and a copy placed in the Library of the House. The identity of the military aircraft concerned has not yet been confirmed.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the comfort and well-being of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at MOD main building, Whitehall, London. [18282]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department's policy is that smoking in the main building is not allowed in the main reception areas, toilets, changing rooms, conference and function rooms, lifts and the staff restaurant, except for the bar and a designated smoking area. In addition, smoking is prohibited in stairwells, the escalator area and all corridors. Smoking areas are available in two areas of the ground floor and some lift areas and within designated areas of the staff restaurant. The policy within individual offices is decided by the wishes of the majority.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying exercises have taken place over(a) Pendle, (b) Ribble Valley and (c) the Yorkshire Dales national park in each year since 1990. [17847]

  Mr. Soames
  Although records are maintained of the total number of sorties flown in the United Kingdom low flying system, it is not possible to estimate the number of sorties flown over particular locations.

  Ex Gratia Payment to Australia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which state is the recipient of the ex gratia payment expended from class I, vote 1, subhead E2 of his Department's budget. [18122]

  Mr. Soames
  The payment is made to Australia.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of expenditure from class I, vote 1, subhead J4 of his Department's budget. [18123]

  Mr. Soames
  The expenditure is broken down as follows:

  £

  Contributions towards the administrative expenses of the mutual defence co-operation agreement with the US

  6,000

  Contributions to the Victoria and George Cross Reunion Association

  31,000

  Advisory and Sales Teams
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 778–79, if he will describe the roles of the British defence advisory team and the Army sales team mentioned in his answer of 30 November 1993, Official Report, column 526 to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and the extent to which they differ. [17129]

  Mr. Freeman
  The British defence advisory team is available to provide overseas Governments with on-site studies and specialist military advice on operational needs for single or multi-service roles. The army sales teams organise and conduct demonstrations, training and trials of British defence equipment in United Kingdom and overseas, and assist companies with sales promotion material and provide specialist advice.

  The teams differ in as much as the BDAT provides operational advice, whereas the sales teams support foreign interest in UK defence equipment.

  Nuclear Weapons Research
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the rules in respect of the Government allowing a non-nuclear state direct or indirect access to its facilities for computer simulation of nuclear testing. [17556]

  Mr. Soames
  Such access is not allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty if it would assist the non-nuclear weapon state to acquire a nuclear weapon capability.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the number of simulated nuclear explosions which have been undertaken, (b) the number of tests on nuclear weapons components or precursors and (c) the costs contributed by the United Kingdom and United States of America respectively, of such forms of nuclear testing under the 1958 United Kingdom Mutual Defence Agreement in each of the last 15 years. [17557]

  Mr. Freeman
  Records of simulations and component tests carried out in the course of nuclear weapons research are not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Surplus Sales
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by volume and type, the surplus(a) furniture or household items, (b) clothing, (c) plant, machinery or tools, (d) electrical goods, (e) electronic goods, (f) computer equipment, (g) ships, (h) aircraft, (i) tanks, (j) armoured vehicles, (k) artillery, (l) ammunition, (m) missiles, (n) helicopters, (o) torpedoes and (p) other items sold to acceptable foreign Governments in the last three years for which information is available; if he will identify the countries invovled; and if he will give the total receipts for each category of item. [15802]
  1101
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Sales to foreign Governments in the last three years have been as follows:

  Number

  Plant and machinery:

  Tractors

  4

  Trailers

  1

  Dump trucks (medium)

  3

  Dump trucks (light)

  3

  Cranes

  1

  Crawlers

  1

  Graders

  2

  Caterpillar

  3

  18

  Ships:

  Type 21 frigates

  6

  Type 22 frigates

  4

  Leander class frigates

  2

  Fleet tankers

  2

  River class minesweepers

  7

  Offshore patrol vessels

  1

  22

  Aircraft:

  Jaguars

  1

  Jet Provost ground runners

  3

  4

  Armoured Vehicles:

  Scorpion CVRTs

  12

  Artillery:

  M109s

  117

  Skyflash

  300

  BL755

  50

  350

  Helicopters:

  Wasps

  6

  Lynx HAS3

  3

  9

  Ammunition:

  200 rounds mortars

  —

  10k misc. explosives

  —

  200k + small arms

  —

  56k + artillery

  —

  Various naval ammunition

  —

  The total value of sales was £206 million.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 1995,Official Report, column 77, how many meetings have taken place between representatives of his Department and Conservative hon. Members since 1 October 1994 to discuss procurement decisions; and if he will give (a) the date, (b) the subject and (c) the names of the Ministers and hon. Members attending. [17655]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 20 March 1995,Official Report, column 77.

  Independent Reviews
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the independent reviews of his Department's work carried out over the last five years, stating(a) the date, (b) the subject, (c) the organisation or individuals who carried out the review, (d) the cost and (e) whether the report is classified or can be placed in the Library. [17656]

  Mr. Soames
  Budget-holders throughout the Ministry of Defence have delegated authority to engage external advisors, on a paid consultancy basis or otherwise, to conduct independent reviews of aspects of the Department's work. Information on such studies is not collected centrally, and the details requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition, the National Audit Office carries out value for money studies of the Ministry of Defence's work as part of its statutory duties. Reports that have been published by the NAO are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 505, if he will give a breakdown of the costs of keeping overseas staff employed by the Defence Export Services Organisation, for each post; and to what entertainment allowances these staff are entitled. [17657]

  Mr. Freeman
  Further to my answer of 27 March, details of the entertainment allocations for posts overseas for FY 1994–95 are as follows:

  Riyadh: £2,000

  Kuwait: £2,000

  New Delhi: £2,000

  Bangkok: £3,000

  Kuala Lumpur: £7,000

  Jakarta: £4,000

  Canberra: £4,500

  Seoul: £5,000

  Ankara £4,000

  There is no separate entertainment allocation for disposals sales staff in Germany.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 505, if he will list the duties of overseas staff employed by the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [17658]

  Mr. Freeman
  The duties of the defence supply staff in the DESO offices in Riyadh, Kuwait, New Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Canberra, Seoul and Ankara are to provide local advice and support to British defence equipment manufacturers. The Disposals Sales Agency staff in Germany receive, market, arrange for sale and issue surplus MOD equipment locally.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials have left the Defence Services Organisation to join defence or defence-related companies in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and if he will list the companies involved and the numbers joining each company. [17659]

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available for the period before January 1990. Since then, 13 members of the Defence Export Services Organisation have made
  1103
  business appointment applications. It is not know whether the appointments were taken up.

  Company

  Applications

  1990:

  VSEL

  1

  CDP Nexus

  1

  1991:

  Short Brothers

  1

  BAe

  1

  Crew Services Ltd.

  1

  Landair Consultants

  1

  EEZ International Ltd.

  1

  Carmichael and Sweet Ltd.

  1

  Marconi Underwater Systems

  1

  Thorn EMI Electronics

  1

  Telecom Supply Line Ltd.

  1

  1992:

  Sillicon Valley Systems

  1

  SD-Scion

  1

  BAe

  1

  Short Brothers

  1

  BAe Defence

  1

  Vosper Thornycroft

  2

  GEC-Marconi Avionics

  1

  1993:

  Bendix Ocean Systems

  1

  Vosper Thornycroft

  1

  BAe

  1

  Ferranti International

  1

  Marconi Underwater Systems

  1

  Computer Devices

  1

  EDS/Scion

  1

  MSI Defence Systems

  1

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  1

  NI Tech

  1

  1994:

  GM Firth (Holdings) Plc

  1

  GEC-Marconi Naval Systems

  1

  Sultanate of Oman

  2

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact the Defence Export Services Organisation had with Mr. Stephen Adolphus Kock between 1985 to 1991 concerning defence sales to(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Iran, (c) Iraq, (d) Kuwait, (e) the United Arab Emirates and (f) Oman. [18244]

  Mr. Freeman
  The DESO is not aware of any record of contact with Mr. Kock concerning exports of defence equipment to the countries listed.

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency; what is its annual budget; and what are its terms of reference. [18083]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of staff employed at present in the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency is 447, and its annual budget for financial year 1994–95 was £111.337 million. Further information can be found in the organisation's corporate plan, business plan and framework document, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Western European Armaments Group
  Dr. Clark
  to ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to join the Western European Armaments Group; and what assessment he has made of the advantages membership would create for Britain. [17539]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The title of the Western European Armaments Group was adopted following the transfer of the functions of the former Independent European Programme Group to the Western European Union in December 1992. The United Kingdom has been a member of the group since its establishment in 1976. The group is the main forum for European co-operation in research, development and production of defence equipment and our membership allows us to participate in the development of the European defence equipment market.

  Training Exercises (Safety)
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulations governing safety officers involved in training under battlefield conditions using live ammunition. [18293]

  Mr. Soames
  The qualifications required to allow officers and NCOs to conduct such training are subject to continual review and are revised where necessary. The qualifications held by individual officers and NCOs are reviewed annually by commanding officers.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the use of lasers instead of live ammunition during training exercises. [18292]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is seeking to introduce lasers into training exercises where it is practicable to do so. The Army is currently using direct fire weapon effects simulators, which employ eye-safe lasers in order to provide realistic two-sided manoeuvre training, known as tactical engagement simulation. This type of training has already commenced on Salisbury plain and is to be introduced at Suffield Canada and a smaller work-up training site in Germany.

  Deaths and Injuries (Information)
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the provision of information to families of service personnel injured or killed in(a) war zones and (b) peacetime training exercises; and if he will make a statement. [18291]

  Mr. Soames
  It is my Department's policy to inform the next of kin of members of the armed forces who are killed or injured in the course of their duty as quickly and as fully as possible of the undisputed facts. Since December 1992, in recognition of the special position of next of kin, service board of inquiry reports have been made available to the nominated next of kin of deceased service personnel, or to the individual in cases of serious permanent injury, should they so request, subject only to the essential minimum of security requirements. No distinction is made between whether the death or injury occurs in a war zone or on a peacetime training exercise.

  Operational Aircraft Requirement
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft are available to the RAF for
  1105
  operational use; and if he will specify the total number of aircraft required by the RAF. [18295]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to annex D of the Statement of the Defence Estimates 1994, Cm 2550, which sets out the strength of the Royal Air Force as at 1 April 1994. New figures will be included in this year's publication.

  Tornado Aircraft, Coningsby
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornados based at RAF Coningsby have recently been grounded; and if he will specify the reasons for the grounding of the Tornados; which company is responsible for the maintenance of the Tornados; what investigation has been carried out into the responsibility for the damage; what is the total cost to repair the damage; who is financially responsible for paying for these repairs; and if he will make a statement. [18294]

  Mr. Soames
  Two Tornado F3s from RAF Coningsby, taking part in NATO Exercise Strong Resolve between 20 February and 10 March, were suspected of receiving contaminated fuel from a VC10 tanker during air-to-air refuelling. The aircraft were grounded for four hours each on 6 March as a precautionary measure; no contamination was found and there was no damage to the aircraft.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will cease passing logistical, intelligence and surveillance information to the Turkish armed forces following their invasion of northern Iraq. [18305]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Government give no support to the Turkish armed forces which assists their operations in northern Iraq.

  Old Sarum Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the registered office and directors of the companies which hold the lease on Old Sarum airfield, namely Blanefield Investments NV and Old Sarum Park Properties Limited. [18309]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not hold any details of the registered office or directors of Blanefield Investments NV as dealings with that company in respect of the lease of Old Sarum airfield have been conducted through the company's appointed legal representatives. The registered office of Old Sarum Park Properties is Old Sarum airfield, Salisbury, Wiltshire. No details of the directors of that company are recorded by the Department in respect of the lease at the airfield.

  Territorial Army Centre, Newbury
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Territorial Army will stop using the TA centre, St. Michael's road, Newbury. [18250]
  1106
  Mr. Soames
  Although we expect that the Territorial Army will no longer require the St. Michael's road centre after the amalgamation of the 1st and 2nd battalions of the Wessex Regiment in October, an exact date has yet to be decided.

  Service Widows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the annual cost of paying the widows of ex-service men a pension of half the rate of their late husband's, regardless of their marital status, income or capital resources. [18160]

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces pension scheme already provides a pension for eligible widows of former service men at half the rate of their late husbands'. This provision was introduced in 1973. Prior to that date, service widows' pensions were assessed at one third of the late husband's pension. The total cost of bringing all widows' pensions in issue at present up to the half rate would be around £27 million per year. In common with other public service occupational schemes, a widow's pension ceases on remarriage. There is, however, discretion to restore the original pension if the subsequent marriage has come to an end and the widow is financially worse off as a result. We estimate that the annual cost of continuing to pay pensions to service widows who remarry would be around £5 million.

  Airwork Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change there has been in the probationary status of Airwork Ltd. with respect to bids and tenders for aircraft maintenance work located at RAF St. Athan and its listing as a defence contractor requiring special attention; and if he will make a statement. [18419]

  Mr. Freeman
  As a result of a breach of contract by Airwork, the contract was terminated by the Department in May 1993. Subsequently, BAe Warton was contracted to repair the aircraft and a claim for damages is being pursued against Bricom, parent company of Airwork at the time of the breach.

  In November 1993 Airwork's business was acquired by Shorts Brothers, although liability for breach of contract remains with Bricom under the conditions of sale. As a result of the breach Airwork Ltd. was placed on the CRSA list—contractors requiring special attention—meaning that they were considered to be significantly in breach of their contractual requirements, that their response in the form of corrective actions was being formally monitored and that consideration would be given to the implications for existing contracts and for new contract proposals.

  The support services division of Shorts Brothers Plc, formerly Airwork, is included on the CRSA list. Listed companies will not automatically be disqualified from bidding for MOD work; each case is treated on its merits. The essential criterion is the relationship between the cause of the breach and the work for which the company wishes to be considered.

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

Drivers: Sleep-prevention Devices
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that sleep-prevention devices should be installed in motor vehicles.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are researching the extent to which driver fatigue and sleepiness may contribute to accidents. The possible benefits of sleep-prevention devices are not yet clear. In any case, at present we know of no such devices which could be regarded as effective, reliable and safe.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Is she aware that the results of independent surveys seem to indicate that more accidents are caused by fatigue and sleep than by drink? If that is so, does she agree that further research is worth while? Funding might then be considered by the Department of Transport for that purpose.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the department is researching that important question. I should tell noble Lords that drink-driving is a factor in 14 per cent. of all fatal accidents. The report to which my learned friend refers—I beg his pardon, I am sure he is learned in other ways—the report to which my noble friend refers compares drink-driving accidents with accidents caused as a result of being tired. The figures quoted for sleep-related accidents are much less easy to define because they rely on subjective views of possible causes of accidents. Professor Home's survey examined motorways and examples of roads restricted to Devon and Cornwall. The number of all accidents on such roads is much less than on built-up roads nationally. Thus we believe that the total number of sleep-related accidents is unlikely to rival the figure for drink-drive accidents. However, the department has commissioned a survey and is continuing to examine the research being done.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, first I apologise for rising before the noble Viscount had asked his supplementary question. It must have been the coffee I had after lunch to stop me falling asleep in your Lordships' House. Is it not the case that most of us who drive a lot feel drowsy from time to time? We then seek to stop for 20 minutes for a rest. Is it not more difficult in Britain than in some other countries to have a rest because there are not the
90
places available to do so? Is that something which should be borne in mind when constructing new motorways and roads?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Viscount's question is interesting. We agree that it is far better to have a short rest and a cup of coffee or, better still, ensure that one is in a fit state to start the journey. On motorways one can call into a service station, but there are other options. For example, the Highway Code suggests that one can open a window a little or have two cups of non-decaffeinated black coffee—good strong stuff. They keep one going and are probably the best way to ensure that one is a good safe driver.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend familiar with the theory that a most effective preventer of sleep is a continuously chattering passenger? That assistance is often provided gratuitously by a spouse! Might not a simple and inexpensive recording of that chatter be used when the driver is alone?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not know where my noble friend has been if he believes that spouses are an inexpensive anti-sleep device. I had intended answering the Question by suggesting that perhaps one needed one's mother-in-law in the car. However, it is a serious matter which needs a serious answer. As regards spouses, the noble Lord must speak for himself. My husband would not agree with him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that research shows that three major causes of accidents are drivers using their telephones, drivers trying to insert cassettes into the player, and drivers eating, all while the vehicle is in motion? If that is so, will the noble Baroness do something about those matters rather than applying a new regulation to provide for hooters or whistles in our cars to wake us up if we drop off?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if the activities to which the noble Lord refers lead to a criminal offence there are already ways of dealing with them, as the noble Lord knows. Recently, a Question was asked in this House about car phones. What the noble Lord suggests is correct. As regards anti-sleep devices, we are a long way from finding any safe, effective and reliable method. It may well be that the noble Lord is right. There will be ways of dealing with the problem other than through regulations.
As I am on my feet, perhaps it is useful to say that the department is concerned to point out that before drivers set off on long journeys, they should make sure that they are fit to undertake such journeys. It is certainly true that if one is starting out early in the morning one should have had a good night's sleep, and vice versa. One should not undertake a long journey at night if one has been at work all day. To follow that advice might be much more effective than an anti-sleep device.

Isle of Wight: Council Elections
2.43 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce legislation to ensure that the elections for the parish and town councils in the Isle of Wight remain in step with the elections for the island's new unitary council as specified in paragraph 5(6) of the order introducing the new council and as recommended by the Local Government Commission.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government have accepted the Local Government Commission's recommendation that parish elections on the Isle of Wight should be held at the same time as the elections to the unitary authority. We are actively considering when and how to bring that about.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Perhaps I may remind him that, although three years may seem a long time in some ways, quite often measures miss out because the necessary legislation does not come up at the right time. Does he agree that it would be a good plan to get on with this matter sooner rather than later?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated to the House, we are conscious of that situation. The Local Government Act 1992 laid down quite tightly the amendments that the Secretary of State may make to local government electoral cycles. He has the power to make only incidental consequential and transitional changes. He cannot make the permanent changes that are required in this instance by using that power. That is why we have to consider how and when the situation that my noble friend indicated to the House should be brought about.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am not very clear about the current electoral arrangements for the Isle of Wight. Can the Minister advise the House on whether the Council is elected on an all-out basis once every four years or whether there is a rolling programme of elections every year? If the council is elected on an all-out basis every four years, would he consider it useful for the parish councils to be elected in a year when there are no county council elections, and for the town councils to be elected in another year so, effectively, constituents in the Isle of Wight have the opportunity of electing at least one tier virtually every year?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in the case of the Isle of Wight, the parish elections, which are due in 1995, will coincide with elections for the unitary authority. But for later years, including those transitional elections scheduled for 1998, the parish council elections will not take place because they are on a four-year cycle. Primary legislation will be needed to bring the electoral cycles into line. Because the Isle of Wight council is a continuing authority of a county council, it will be elected every four years, except for this transitional period, with a further election in 1998, until it falls into the county cycle in the year 2001. In the case of parish councils and town councils, as my noble friend
92
suggested, it has been thought wise to have them at the same time as the elections of other authorities. It improves the turnout and reduces the cost.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, when the dates of those elections are decided, will they advise the BBC?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I failed to hear the last part of the noble Lord's question.

Defence Medical Services
2.48 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there will be sufficient uniformed consultants in the defence medical services to meet the requirements of the Armed Forces for secondary medical care in peace or emergencies short of a full-scale war.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that there will be sufficient uniformed consultants in the defence medical services to meet the requirements of the Armed Forces in such circumstances.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If the Minister were to be shot in the foot—I imply no personally inflicted injury—he would not wish it to be amputated without anaesthetic or the presence of an orthopaedic surgeon. Will he assure the House that fully manned and equipped medical services are essential to the morale and effectiveness of the front line?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble and gallant Lord. There are currently some shortfalls in manning certain specialisations. I should mention in particular anaesthetists. I understand that this is a wider problem which extends throughout the National Health Service. It is not just a problem for the defence medical services. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that steps are being taken to address such problems. With regard to morale in the defence medical services, they have obviously been through great changes and it is understandable that people should have concerns about their future. But I can give an assurance that the future of the DMS is bright and the prospects will continue for a worthwhile and varied career for service medical personnel in the finest health care regime in the country.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent will the Territorial Army he used to provide medical officers in an emergency?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we recently published a new paper on the future of the reserves. In the past we have made use of Territorial Army doctors and medical personnel when necessary. We shall continue to make use of them as and when it is

93
appropriate. I hope that the new legislation, when and if Parliament approves it, will allow us to make yet further use of the TA as appropriate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if particular medical expertise not readily available to the Armed Forces is urgently needed for a specific case, can the Minister say whether the Armed Forces will have access to some of the centres of excellence in the National Health Service which can provide that expertise?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously if such a case arose we would make use of the National Health Service if necessary. I was trying to assure the noble and gallant Lord that we believe that the size of the defence medical services will be sufficient for all our operational requirements.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he feels that the balance of serving doctors and surgeons in each of the services is now about right? The numbers in each of the services seems to be disproportionate. In the Navy there are 309; in the Army, 217; and in the RAF, 403. There is also not a good balance among the nursing staff. There are 96 in the Royal Navy, 422 in the Army and 127 in the RAF. It would appear therefore that there is an imbalance. Can the Minister say whether there is any way of bringing each service more into balance from the point of view of serving doctors and surgeons?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are happy that the numbers in all three services will be sufficient, as I made clear earlier, for supporting fully all the operational requirements of the Armed Forces, whether it is a single service or all three services. They will be capable of supporting simultaneous operations; for example, at the present time the emergency commitments in Angola, the Falklands and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is interchangeability of medical expertise between the different services? For example, can a Navy doctor legitimately don an Army uniform or an Army doctor legitimately don a Navy uniform if the occasion requires? It would seem that, along with the joint staff college that we have been discussing, it would be a sensible arrangement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot say whether or not they can actually change uniform. However, the noble Lord will appreciate that there will be one single Ministry of Defence hospital, which will be tri-service. There will be a single tri-service defence medical service. There will then be a number of Ministry of Defence hospital units attached to NHS hospitals. One will be in Plymouth, which I imagine will have more of a naval flavour; one will be near Aldershot and will no doubt have more of an Army flavour. But there is no reason why individual doctors in individual services cannot move across services to enable a naval doctor to operate on the foot of an Army soldier.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the present total number of uniformed consultants is across the services, as compared with five years ago?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot remember what the figures are of five years ago. We are planning on a complement of 365 consultants and senior specialists.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, to take my noble friend's question a little further, obviously by definition the Armed Forces must have first call on the medical services. However, if those medical services are not required by the Armed Forces for emergencies or anything else, will they be available for civilians who may need such services and who are on waiting lists for medical treatment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to stress that defence medical services are to provide for the Armed Forces, and particularly for the Armed Forces' front line role. Obviously they will be able to provide a degree of assistance for dependants within the Armed Forces, not as of right, but where there is a degree of slack or where there is a need to provide appropriate training to our own specialists which they cannot obtain purely from looking after a constituency of relatively fit young men and women.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, will my noble friend review the date of the closure of the Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital at Woolwich in view of the fact that it would appear that it is to close at the same time as the new military wings being established in the National Health Service hospitals at Frimley and Peterborough?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no plans to do so and I do not believe that it will be necessary to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can I press the Minister a little further on this Question? Let us assume that certain emergencies arise, short of a full-scale war as mentioned in the Question, and there are civilian casualties. Can I take it that if the defence medical services are not employed at the front line, they will be available for those civilian casualties as well?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the circumstances the noble Lord highlights, if the services are available they will be available for that task.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in view of the shortage in certain consultant specialisations dealing with trauma, which the Minister acknowledged, can he say what additional steps the Government have in mind to correct the shortfall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we are taking steps to look at the specific problems in relation to anaesthetists. Where shortages occur in other areas we shall have to look hard at the situation, insisting that consultants stay on rather than taking premature voluntary retirement, should they be seeking that. It is important that we keep those numbers up. We shall look at all possible means to make sure that numbers in each speciality are kept up to the appropriate level.

Grant-maintained Schools
2.56 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many schools have achieved grant-maintained status and how many more have expressed the wish to do so.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to date 1,200 schools in Great Britain have applied for grant-maintained or self-governing status. Of those, 1,070 are now self-governing and a further 42 have applications in the pipeline. Self-government benefits schools and the communities they serve. That is why the sector continues to grow and flourish.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply, but can he tell the House whether, for those schools which have made the switch from local education authority to grant-maintained status, the numbers of pupils in what are now the grant-maintained schools have increased? Indeed, perhaps more relevant, can he say whether the numbers of teachers employed in such grant-maintained schools have increased?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. While one cannot be too exact about the figures, it appears from our information that pupil numbers in grant-maintained schools are growing faster than average. The proportion of the schools' budgets spent on teachers is also rising and the number of teachers increases when the school goes grant maintained.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, while the Minister is expounding the success of opt-out schools, can he say whether the Government intend to help those schools which have already found themselves to be drastically short of funds, which may result in their having to lay off teachers? What does the Minister intend to do about that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I said before, it has been a difficult year for funding in education, and grant-maintained schools are subject to the same restraints as other schools.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, apart from the improvement in our educational system in relation to grant-maintained schools, the amount of taxpayers' money spent on education per pupil has increased substantially since 1979?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. It has risen by around 50 per cent. It is a record of which we can he extremely proud.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio in the education service as a whole is worsening as a result of the Government's failure to fund or allow full funding for all schools funded from the state sector, be they grant maintained or local authority run? Can he also confirm that those schools, particularly Church schools,
96
which are allocated capital funding for building repairs, are treated less favourably than the grant-maintained schools funded by the Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is in danger of becoming a long and complicated question, but I shall do my best to answer as much of it as I can in a reasonably short time. I would not agree with the noble Baroness's second point at all. Grant-maintained schools obtain all their capital funding from the Government. Other schools have many other sources available to them. It is difficult to make comparisons. We have always said that we will give grant-maintained schools the capital that they should have. Local authorities have many other ways of finding money to help their schools, other than by direct grants from the Government. With regard to the noble Baroness's first point, I really do not believe that that is the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the answer that he has just given to his noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston about the increase in spending per head omitted three points: first, the funding of teachers' salaries; secondly, it was based on the RPI and not on an increase in educational costs; and, thirdly, it omitted falling school rolls and therefore the fact that overheads have to have the costs shared between fewer pupils and that the amount of money available is therefore falling?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the answer I gave was quite clear. The amount of money we spend per pupil has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Yes, it is true that we have paid teachers better salaries than they were paid under the Labour Government. Indeed, teachers have done better than non-manual workers as a whole. Some of the increase in funding has gone to paying teachers better. I do not think that is a bad thing.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, has the Minister any details on the Oratory School, which has been chosen by the Leader of the Opposition in another place?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a superb school. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his choice.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister recall that no fewer than 12 sections of the Education Act 1993, which took up so much of our time and the time of another place last year and the year before, provide for groups of schools to opt out together and for existing grant-maintained schools to join groups? Is he aware that the possibility of groups has since then spawned one 28-page glossy booklet, a 38-page technical paper and five statutory instruments covering 56 pages? Can he now tell the House how many grant-maintained schools have opted out into groups and what the promotion of this absurd possibility has cost so far?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as I know—I stand to be corrected and I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—no schools have taken advantage of this opportunity. Schools choose whether to take advantage of it. We are putting no pressure on them to do so. We

97
are pleased to have provided them with the opportunity. I do not have an answer with me to the noble Lord's second question. I shall write to him.

Business of the House: Debates, 5th April
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Viscount Tenby and the Lord Palmer set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to three hours (Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [After-care under supervision]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of section 7(2) below").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 135, which is consequential upon it. Before getting down to the matter of this amendment I should like to take the chance to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and through her Mr. Bowis and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for the meeting which they so very kindly arranged to give us an explanation of the Bill and the issues arising from it. It was a very valuable meeting. It was gratefully received and I should like to thank the Ministers concerned for the time and trouble they have put into it. This is another in the list of suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, for improving the procedure of the House. I think it will work.
Amendment No. 1 is an amendment to the commencement clause of the Bill to provide that the Bill shall come into effect on a date to be agreed between the local authority associations and the Minister, or their successor bodies. The words "successor bodies" may possibly he redundant. They are an exercise in belt and braces. But with the local government review in progress we never know what is going to happen next, so I thought it best to draft the amendment with a certain amount of caution.
I am glad, for a change, to be able to say that on the whole I think this is not a had Bill. It is, of course, in a minor key, though not necessarily the worse for that. It seems to be tackling some difficult issues in a helpful way and in areas where it is often impossible for anyone ever to be right. In a lot of points it is as near as one can reasonably expect. However, I share the amazement expressed by my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington at the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill. That is the one thing which causes me great surprise. It states:
"The Bill should give rise to no additional costs for Health Authorities (in England and Wales), Health Boards (in Scotland) or local authorities. The new provisions for supervision and community care orders provide a legislative framework for existing good practice".
That may well be so but there is a very big difference between good practice and universal practice. That is true even in the best of our institutions. So to universalise good practice in any institution surely must carry additional costs. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship has expressed itself amazed at that statement in the Financial Memorandum. I cannot help sharing that amazement.
The purpose of this Bill is to lay new statutory obligations on local authorities. Local authorities are rapidly coming to feel about statutory obligations as Ministers have long felt about natural rights—they are more expensive than practical to implement. So, much though I might like a lot of the provisions of the Bill, if or when they can be had, I am reluctant to put into force a Bill which is to put, I fear, large numbers of local authorities in breach of the law. That does not seem to be a very good thing to do. I have always held to the 17th century legal maxim that the law does not compel people to do the impossible.
We know that the funding of care in the community was already under strain before the Bill was brought forward. I shall mention the judicial review case in Gloucestershire without needing to develop that theme. I am reluctant at the moment to add new burdens to what local authorities are already carrying. At the time of year when the local government financial settlement is announced a number of our constituency parties tend to be holding annual dinners. I am used to experiencing gloom about local authority financial settlements, but what I found this year was not the gloom, which to some degree I expect, but sheer rocketing hysteria. I have never found anything like it before. It caused me considerable alarm.
I believe that the Minister is aware that local authorities have some sense of misgiving about the funding available to implement the provisions of this Bill. She may say, "They would, wouldn't they?" But the same argument does not apply to the Law Society which, in the briefing it has supplied, expresses equally strong misgivings about the availability of funds. So has the Royal College of Psychiatrists who point out the burden on local authorities as being much the greater because of frequent premature discharge from hospital. The noble Baroness may say that that is not the case. I cannot help feeling that the Royal College of

99
Psychiatrists is slightly nearer to the front line than she and therefore, in cases of conflict, possibly more likely to be right.
It is not my purpose to set up myself or this House as the judge of whether there is enough money. It is a difficult thing to judge in the course of a debate. The point I wish to make about this amendment is that this is an area in which coercion is not the appropriate weapon. If this Bill is to succeed, it must be undertaken on all hands with faith that it is possible to undertake the tasks which it lays on people. Without that faith it will be done badly and with fear; with an eye over the shoulder and, on occasion, with a heavy heart. In implementing provisions which are themselves good and which could do a lot of good, that is something about which I would feel very great regret.
Even in the greatest "Mission Impossible" stories, the faith of the person who carries out the mission is always a crucial ingredient in its success. The purpose of this amendment is that the Bill should not come into force until, by whatever means are necessary, that faith has been created. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support these two amendments. Before I do so, perhaps I may comment on the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in moving the amendment about the useful and informed meeting we had—which I am not going to quote—with the Minister and officials after Second Reading and before Committee stage. I believe that the Minister will be the first to agree that if these meetings are to be useful, we should receive a note of them a little more quickly than we received the note of this particular meeting. I received mine at half-past two this afternoon and I have not yet had a chance to read it. I believe that the draft was circulated at the end of last week. Then there is the weekend post and all the rest of it. We are anxious for this experiment to succeed. If it is to be helpful, then the note of the meeting, which I agree is informed, but it is not a transcript, should help us with the Committee stage. I have the note and I am here to deal with amendments; but I have not had a chance to read it because I received it only today. At the moment the reaction of this side of the Committee to the experiment is one of modified rapture. I am sure that we shall learn from it. The most important thing is that a note of the meeting should be circulated as quickly as possible after the meeting.
I believe that the noble Earl has made all the points that need to be made about the arguments for delay, including the possible changes in local authorities and health authorities. We can learn from the hospital part of the reforms of the National Health Service and from the way they were rushed in. The community care implementation was delayed because of the effect on the poll tax.
There are resource implications, as I read the financial memorandum to the Bill, and with more effective use of existing resources, presumably, that means that the patients affected by this Bill will, as it were, be moved up the queue, but the queue will stay the same length. They will simply get a different place in that queue if there are no more resources to be made available.
100
There is the point that if the community and mental health nurses become supervisors in the care package, they will need training and that cannot be done without cost. I ask the Minister to deal with the point about the Government's optimism that there will be no implications about costs. There is the additional training and all the costs associated with change. If we are to have the care packages and the help and supervision which we all agree are needed—and we support the ideas in the Bill—they will need time and careful resource planning. If these amendments were accepted by the Government, I believe they would improve the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I cannot disagree more with what the noble Lord has just said. If Amendment No. 135 is accepted by the Government, the delay would be impossible. We require something on the lines of this Bill a great deal sooner than we would get the agreement of everyone before we have the legislation. I very much hope that my noble friend will not be carried away by the otherwise splendid remarks of both the noble Earl and the noble Lord opposite.
I offer my thanks for the meeting beforehand. I have just had time to read the note which I received at ten past two. The note does not reflect what I remember of the meeting at all. The note might just as well have not been written. I hope that next time we have a note produced by someone other than a person trying to produce something which is totally anodyne. That might be a little more helpful for the future, but let that he. In the meantime, I hope that neither of these amendments is accepted.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support my noble friend's amendments. I believe that the timing proposed by the Minister is inappropriate for Scotland for this reason. The House will be well aware that local authorities in Scotland are reorganising at this very moment. Indeed, we have elections to the shadow councils this coming Thursday. In Scotland we shall be moving from 13 to 32 social work authorities and from 55 to 32 housing authorities. Both these local authority departments are going to be much involved in the provisions of community care orders.
I suggest that by the autumn of this year senior local authority staff, and most local authority staff, will be preoccupied with moving jobs and also wondering whether they will be in jobs and with whom. They will be moving jobs to the new shadow authorities. I suggest that it is unlikely that they will be able to concentrate on the provision of new services. On these grounds, I certainly suggest a delay in Scotland until at least 1st July 1996 by which time the new local authorities will have been running for three months.
An increase in funding must be provided under Section 8 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, especially if there are to be any more community care orders made other than for the 100 or so patients currently on their second or subsequent year of leave of absence who form the preferred target group. Even for

101
those patients the level of provision needs to be raised if the community care order is to be a worthwhile and helpful measure.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his very kind words in general about the Bill. The noble Earl has raised some general principles which were comprehensively debated at Second Reading. I listened with interest as he described some of his Liberal colleagues being in sheer, rocketing hysteria. That may be because it is the first time some of them now have power with responsibility and are beginning to realise that it is easy to act as a Greek chorus when one is a member of a local authority, but that it is much more difficult when one actually has responsibility and has to make budgets balance.
Perhaps I may refer very briefly to the meeting which took place. I am glad that noble Lords found it useful. As regards the note of the meeting, after the meeting took place it was agreed with the Opposition Benches that we should have an agreed minute so that there was no wrangling about its wording. It was delivered by hand on Thursday to the Whips' Office. It was very much my hope that it would have been agreed and dispatched by us on Friday.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: It will be pointless to discuss with the Minister the vagaries of the internal and external post, but I agree with her understanding that a joint minute or note had been agreed upon. I believe that I was one of the first to see it. I saw it at about eight o'clock yesterday evening, at which point there was no chance to make further comment on it. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, which is that I thought it a rather anodyne account of the proceedings. It is difficult for me to understand where there was a hiccup in the proceedings, but I was in our Whips' Office on Friday and I am surprised that I did not receive it by hand then.
Baroness Cumberlege: I have been given absolute assurances that it was delivered to the Whips' Office on Thursday morning.
Perhaps I may deal with the amendments. The most significant effect of the amendments would be to make the commencement date of the Bill the subject of negotiation between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the local authority associations. That would be a most unusual arrangement and we can see no justification for it. The proposals embodied in the Bill have already been the subject of wide consultation. The Bill places no new duties on local authorities or others. It underpins and may give some direction to their existing obligations under Section 117 of the 1983 Act for providing aftercare services for patients who have been discharged.
The Committee will be aware that the increase in resources provided by the Government is £10 million in mental illness support grant for this year alone. Apart from the delay which was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, we believe that when Parliament passes legislation which has been subject to the proper processes of consultation, it is for Parliament itself to
102
say when it should come into force. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will not wish to press his amendment.
Earl Russell: I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks about our councillors, and I deduce that it is quite a long time since she had any conversation with any of her party's councilors—
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may assure the noble Earl that I did so on Friday.
Earl Russell: In that case, the Minister must have a very short memory because that mood about local authority finances is common to all three parties. I suggest that if the noble Baroness talks to her party's councillors in Warwickshire and to her honourable friend Mr. Howarth, she might find that that mood extends rather wider than she supposes. At the moment, Conservative councillors are an endangered species, and because I believe wholeheartedly in political pluralism I think that they deserve a little bit of help before they are extinguished. Paying some attention to the amendment might provide that.
I agree with what the Minister said about the mental illness support grant. I must apologise for not having made the point myself, but I caught sight of the time. We are grateful for that increase. It is welcome. The difficulty arises from the need for local authorities to make a 30 per cent. matching grant in order for that support grant to come into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister could undertake to consult her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about how those difficulties in making the matching grant arise because, if the matching grant cannot be made, the increase in the mental illness support grant will be useless because the money will not be received.
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie made an extremely important point about Scotland. We all know that reorganisation leads to disorganisation—and two reorganisations at once might be a bit much for anybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is both a pessimist and an optimist at the same time. He said that the provisions would lead to impossible delays. So they would, if nothing were done, but what needs to be done could be done extremely quickly if the political will were there. Therefore, if there were to be a response from the Government Front Bench, the delay could be nugatory. In that way, the noble Lord is a pessimist. He is an optimist in that he thinks that, if the Bill goes ahead without any additional funding behind it, the improvement, which I agree with him is urgent, would follow. It will not follow unless the bricks and mortar are there, and you cannot make bricks without straw. This is a vital issue for the success of the whole Bill and I should like to ask the opinion of the Committee.
3.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bridges, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chapple, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Redesdale, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Geraint, L.

Shannon, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gregson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Warnock, B.

Haskel, L.

Whaddon, L.

Headfort, M.

White, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Butterworth, L.

Acton, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cayzer, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Alport, L.

Chesham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Cockfield, L.

Astor, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Balfour, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Bethell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Blaker, L.

Cross, V.

Blatch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Borthwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V.

Brahazon of Tara, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Downshire, M.

Brookes, L.

Eccles, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ely, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

104

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Morris, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottiscone, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Mountevans, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Geddes, L.

Moyne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Munster, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Nelson, E.

Grantchester, L.

Newall, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gridley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Haig, E.

Onslow, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peel, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Pender, L.

Hayter, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Pike, B.

Hogg, B.

Pym, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Ironside, L.

Renwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Killearn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinnoul, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Sandford, L.

Knollys, V.

Savile, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Selborne, E.

Lindsay, E.

Sharples, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Long, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skidelsky, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tebbit, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Manton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("from") to end of line 7 and insert ("severe chronic mental illness; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. The purpose of both amendments is to define more precisely and narrowly those patients who should be subject to supervised aftercare. In our view, these should be the so-called revolving door patients whose severity of illness makes it difficult for them to comply with care plans outside hospital. They tend to suffer relapse in the community and need to be readmitted to hospital.
The definition, as it is presently drawn in the Bill, appears to suggest a wider group than that which was included in the internal review by the Department of Health of the legal powers for the care of mentally ill people in the community. That was published by the department in August 1993. The review expressed concern about a small group of so-called revolving door patients who needed constant supervision. Without such supervision they would have had to be admitted to hospital. The report identified two groups of patients as being specially prone to this pattern: those with schizophrenia and those with manic depressive psychosis, both forms of severe chronic mental illness. No mention is made in the report of categories of people suffering from mental impairment or any other form of mental disorder who are included in the Bill as it now stands and who are unlikely to present precisely the same problems as revolving door patients. The amendments attempt to limit the number of people who will be subject to this form of aftercare and thereby address some of the problems raised in the previous amendments in relation to the over-burdening of resources.
The second amendment refers to the need to define such patients in terms of their clinical state and the fact that they have been admitted to hospital more than once. As the Bill stands it appears that someone may be subject to a supervised discharge order simply on the basis of one admission to hospital. We have been advised for example by the Law Society that the use of such coercive powers is unjustified unless it has been demonstrated that compulsion is required to avoid repeated admissions to hospital, which may occur because of severe mental illness. It may be that the department's clinical advisers will suggest a slightly different form of words to encompass this group. However, our assertion is that if the group who can be appropriately dealt with in this way in the community is to be as narrowly defined, it should be precisely and narrowly confined to those who have chronic severe mental illness and not to the broader group which includes mental impairment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The National Schizophrenia Fellowship is appalled by, and opposes strongly, the amendments to limit the numbers. We should forget for the moment whether the resources are available. That is not the point of the Bill. Narrowing the provision down could have all sorts of adverse effects upon the people who need treatment within the terms of the Bill. Account has to be taken of the patient's history. That implies that he must have one. That may mean repeated admissions to hospital. However, it could mean that he has a history of violence to others and of repeated suicide attempts which do not equate with three hospital admissions in the preceding two years.
It would be madness to prevent the patient being subject to aftercare under supervision if he attacked people repeatedly but not within the two years just before the RMO wanted to make the application for supervision or if he had not built up a record of three hospital admissions within that period. The patient may
106
have been in prison. The narrowness introduced by the amendments is not helpful. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press them.
Baroness Cumberlege: In proposing the grounds for making an application for supervision in the community, we have chosen the current definition of mental disorder with great care. To have been detained in hospital for treatment in the first place, the patient must have been diagnosed as suffering from one of the disorders described in the Mental Health Act, and that disorder must be of the nature or degree justifying his detention for treatment. To satisfy the criteria for supervised discharge, we believe that the RMO should be satisfied that the patient still falls within one of those legal categories. So we resist the first amendment.
We also find Amendment No. 3 too restrictive. It is true that Clause I is directed primarily at revolving door patients—that is, those with a history of admission, discharge, deterioration and readmission. Trying to define that group exactly risks excluding many patients who might be discharged successfully with the safeguards of the new provisions. The Bill requires that the RMO must consider the patient's history, as my noble friend said, before making an application. We believe that that is sufficient to ensure that the issue is considered. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I understand what she says about the definition of "mental disorder" but I wonder whether she could help me further on the question of mental impairment.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am not sure of the aspect on which the noble Baroness seeks further help. Severe mental impairment is a psychopathic disorder which I believe is clear in the Act.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I do not understand it in that way. It seems to me that severe mental impairment does not suggest the type of clinical psychosis—obviously I am not an expert in the psychiatric field—and I should have thought that it had a much broader definition than the one the Minister has given of the type of condition which was supposed to be included in this group of, as she rightly said, revolving door patients.
The problem relates to the broadness of the definitions in the Bill as it now stands. There may be a drain on resources. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says that that is irrelevant to the Bill. However, many of us, when considering the terms of the Bill and the broad financial agreements which accompany it, have been concerned that there should not be over-optimistic assumptions about the range of people who would be thought to be subject to the order. So that point is not as irrelevant as he made out.
The definition of the group of patients who would make themselves most readily available for help in this way should be as precise as possible. The Minister says that Amendment No. 3 is too narrow. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said about someone

107
having been in prison. But the question may be whether it is possible—again, perhaps the Minster can help—that someone who had been admitted to hospital once only would be subject to a supervised discharge order.
Baroness Cumberlege: It is a matter of judgment. Provided the patient complies with the criteria set out in the Bill, it would be for the RMO to decide whether the patient should be under supervised discharge.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: It is very, very difficult in this area to achieve any terminology which is precisely right. It is an imprecise area. It matters a great deal more, whatever terminology we use, that it should be used with a great deal of care than that we spend a long time trying to draw up words which will have one set of meanings in medical circles and perhaps another in legal circles. A great deal depends also upon what we think is the purpose of the supervision orders. The impulse to draw the supervision orders, and the group subject to them, more narrowly probably goes back to the original publicity impetus behind the Bill, which was to concentrate upon violent offenders.
In fact, by far the more common problem, especially in schizophrenia, is suicide or depression. If we think about these orders being applied to people who are unable to cope, then the wider definition may have something to be said for it. These are the type of people we see sleeping in doorways as we go down the Strand in the evening, as I often have occasion to do. Many of them might benefit from a supervision order when they do not quite come within the terms of Amendment No. 3. I ask the Minister whether advice has been taken in the drafting of the clause from the groups which deal with homelessness. I imagine that they might well support the wording, but I should be interested to know whether they have done so.
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not have with me the list of people who were consulted, but I know that there was wide consultation in drawing up the Bill. If the noble Earl would like examples of the organisations which were approached, I am very happy to give them to him in writing. Perhaps I may reiterate that the definitions are in the Act. I believe that their limits are well understood by mental health workers. I agree with the noble Earl. Having defined the terms in the 1983 Act, it would be a great mistake to try to redefine them in the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: As regards definition, I accept entirely what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says about the different forms of interpretation, but the difficulty with the order is that it imposes a degree of compulsion on patients, which is not included in the 1983 Act. That is why we seek to define the provision narrowly. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("persons") to ("if") in line 11.
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to omit the words in lines 10 and 11,
"or of the patient being seriously exploited."
Those words are capable of many interpretations. Anyone who was in the House yesterday would think first and foremost about economic exploitation, but that I imagine was not the intention behind the debate. I admit that we cannot be too precise with words, but I am reluctant to put into the Bill words whose interpretation is so very, very doubtful and which could so very easily bear a meaning completely wide of the Bill's purposes.
If the Minister could explain more clearly what the words are intended to do, it is possible that we might arrive at an agreed wording, but it is probably not perfect yet. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: These amendments seek to alter one of the three conditions which must be satisfied if aftercare under supervision is to be imposed or renewed. The criteria for the new power were considered in considerable depth in out internal review, which looked at legal powers on the care of mentally ill people in the community. The team concluded that the grounds for receiving aftercare under supervision should include the risk of being seriously exploited. This was set out in the report of the review, which we published in August 1993, and was the subject of widespread consultation. These proposals form the basis of the Bill now before the Committee.
The condition that a patient might be at risk of exploitation does not stand alone but is inseparable from the other conditions for imposing or renewing aftercare under supervision, listed at new Sections 25A(4) and 25G(4) respectively. Chief among these is that the patient must be suffering from one of the four forms of mental disorder defined in the 1983 Act. We are trying to identify a small group of mentally disordered patients whose care in the community is less effective than it should be because of a repeating pattern in which they fail to comply with their treatment plan and then have to be readmitted to hospital. There will be mentally disordered patients who are at risk of exploitation who will fall into this group. Such risks might be that they could be lured into prostitution or that they are exposed to the risks of drug abuse.
Furthermore, the concept of risk of exploitation is not new; it is in the 1983 Act already. It is one of the grounds on which detention may be renewed in Section 20(4). If the risk of serious exploitation may be a valid ground for continuing someone's detention, we believe that it must follow that in different circumstances it will be a valid ground for requiring their aftercare to be supervised.
I hope that with that explanation we can reach an agreement on the wording, as the noble Earl suggested.
Earl Russell: I am sure that we can do so. I find the Minister's explanation reasonable, persuasive and compelling. The only problem is that the conditions which the Minister mentioned —the risks of being led, say, into prostitution or drug abuse—extend beyond the

109
range of those who suffer from mental illness. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, speak on the subject in this Chamber several times. How would the Minister respond to a form of words referring to patients at risk of exploitation by reason of their mental condition? That might tic the matter down in a way that I hope is within the Minister's original purposes.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that drugs are closely related to mental illness; in fact, we find a close correlation. I am open to discuss the matter further with the noble Earl. Perhaps we can reach an agreement.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for her reply. It is a matter not to be continued inside the Chamber, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert:
("(c) he would be unlikely to accept the after-care services to be so provided if he were not subject to after-care under supervision,").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to make explicit, and to emphasise, the fact that patients subject to supervised discharge should be only those whose level of severe mental illness makes it unlikely that they would accept aftercare services if there were no order. It may appear to the Minister that the proposal is slightly over-egging the pudding in the sense that it is an implicit understanding in the Bill. However, it appears that many of those who work with people who have the kind of mental illness that makes it difficult for them to accept care agreements are concerned that only in the most extreme circumstances should an order be imposed which may undermine the principles of the so-called therapeutic alliance and non-coercive relationships on which so much effective work in the community is based. The Royal College of Physicians, for example, has stated that a negative effect of the Bill may be the loss of trust in the doctor-patient relationship among patients who could be most likely to be subject to the provisions. Risk could be justified only if the benefit were great enough. At present, the college does not believe that the benefit will be as great as the Government predict.
The problem is that there exists a Catch-22 situation and that precisely those patients most likely to benefit from the kind of supervised aftercare that the Bill describes will be those who, in principle, are most likely to resist it. The amendment would underline and make explicit in the Bill the fact that it is an extreme measure to be employed only in circumstances where people believe that a non-coercive and more co-operative arrangement would fail. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: In its present form, the new Section 25A requires the responsible medical officer to he satisfied that the patient's being subject to aftercare
110
under supervision is "likely to help secure" that he receives the services he needs. The amendment would require the RMO to answer a negative question about whether the patient was unlikely to accept the services if they were not supervised. We believe that this would be more difficult to interpret than the grounds that the Bill gives at present and would inhibit the sensible use of the new power. We do not believe that it would add anything to the rights of the patient, which the Bill already safeguards very fully. The noble Baroness said that perhaps the amendment over-eggs the pudding and that is our view too. I hope that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. The issue is about words, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The phrase which the Minister picked out—that the agreement should be "likely to help secure" aftercare services—is not meaningful as it stands. It does not sound like a particular guarantee of aftercare.
The amendment is an attempt to underline the need to see the new order as an extreme measure rather than something that might become a more customary approach by responsible medical officers and people in the community. I heard what the Minister said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("supervision") to ("that") in line 15 and insert ("for the purpose of ensuring").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. Some of my comments will be similar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in speaking to Amendment No. 5. My amendments are designed to clarify and make more positive one of the reasons why patients can be subject to aftercare under supervision. I believe that replacing the words "is likely to help" with the words "for the purpose of ensuring" is more positive and more in line with other uses of those phrases in new Sections 25B(8) (b) and 25D(1). Both new sections use more positive words to describe what is needed. I hope that this minor change to the phraseology will be acceptable to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that I understand my noble friend's intentions in proposing these amendments but we doubt whether they will achieve the effect he seeks. His point, as I understand it, is that the new power should be used only when those concerned believe that it will ensure the patient's receipt of the aftercare services. We are afraid that this will be an unrealistically high threshold. The purpose of the new Section 25A(4) (c) is to ensure that the patient receives the aftercare services that he needs by supervising him in the community. But there can be no absolute certainty in advance that this is going to succeed and if the amendment were passed there would be a risk that responsible medical officers and others would feel reluctant to use supervision because they did not feel sure that it would succeed. That could lead to patients

111
who need to be supervised being discharged without any supervision at all. I ask my noble friend to reconsider and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I shall read them with care and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage with something better. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("who has previous acquaintance with the patient and who is approved under section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 28. All three amendments address the question of the qualifications of those medical officers who will be responsible both in relation to the discharge and the community care of a person who is subject to a supervised discharge order.
Amendment No. 7 aims to ensure that the person who is about to discharge a patient has the necessary acquaintanceship with the case and is approved under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act. That brings the new Bill into line with the previous Mental Health Acts.
The other two amendments refer to the organisation and care of the person under the supervised discharge order living in the community. They use the words which are in the Scottish provisions which, in this instance, as I think in some others, are more precise and phrased more clearly than those for England and Wales. The words:
"who shall be a practitioner having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder",
enable those who are caring for the patient, those who are related to the patient and, indeed, the patient himself to be clear about the substantial post-graduate specialism of the person looking after the patient. That is necessary to ensure that if, as was explained on Second Reading, the new procedure is to be health-driven in the sense that that is something which is based within the health services rather than the community or social services, it must be done on a specialised basis. At every stage, there must be a clear understanding that the medical officer in charge has the necessary post-graduate training to enable a detailed understanding both of the diagnosis and the treatment involved in caring for what will be, as we have already discussed this afternoon, a very small but probably very difficult group of people.
Anxiety has also been expressed about the casualness of some of the references to medical practitioners. For example, on page 3 at line 44 of the Bill, where it is discussing whose written comments shall accompany a supervision application, at the end it refers merely to "any registered medical practitioner". I understand that that is not somebody who will be in a position of responsibility vis-à-vis any patient; but these amendments aim to make it very clear and very specific
112
that those persons who have responsibility shall he clinical specialists at a post-graduate level and have the necessary qualifications.
As the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out, that is particularly important in relation to the community responsible medical officer. That is a new term which it feels is inadequately defined in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will listen to that detailed, clinical approach of those who arc most involved with the care of patients. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Unfortunately Amendment No. 136 is not grouped with these amendments but it falls naturally into a grouping with Amendment No. 28. Both of those amendments refer to the community responsible medical officer. If the Committee agrees, I shall speak now to Amendment No. 136.
I have great sympathy for what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said about all four amendments. I merely suggest that Amendment No. 136 is rather fuller and more definite in dealing with the problem which arises in relation to Amendment No. 28. I should have thought that my amendment provides a better line of approach for that particular need. Schedule I provides the definitions for the new post of community responsible medical officer. It may be that that is the right place for it. At this stage, I shall go no further than that.
The Earl of Longford: I shall speak to Amendment No. 9, which is on the same general issue. I go a little further than my noble friend Lady Jay because I submit to the Committee that the person who takes the crucial decisions should he a registered psychiatrist. It is the same argument but it goes rather further. The decisions arc crucial. We are talking about mentally sick people. The only people who can make a decision, which will he imperfect in this wicked world but which is the best we can provide, are registered psychiatrists.
Earl Haig: I support the amendment. It is extremely important because it concerns crucial moments in the lives of patients. If medical decisions are made without proper knowledge, patients may regress, and that may have very serious consequences. Whoever is responsible must have the right knowledge and qualifications. If that is so, he will be able to instil the necessary confidence in his patients, which is of great importance.
Baroness Cumberlege: There seems to be some informal grouping going on here and if I over-egg my arguments, I hope that the Committee will forgive me.
The term "responsible medical officer" is clearly defined in Section 34 of the 1983 Act. For those patients liable to be detained in hospital this is the registered medical practitioner in charge of the treatment for which they have been detained. Under our proposals, that is the practitioner who would make the application for aftercare under supervision. It is hard to envisage a situation in which this would not be a consultant psychiatrist.
The community responsible medical officer appears for the first time in the present Bill and is defined in paragraph 4 of Schedule I, as my noble friend said, as

113
the registered medical practitioner in charge of the medical treatment provided for a patient subject to aftercare under supervision.
These amendments seek to require that only certain categories of people may act as the responsible medical officer. With regard to the hospital RMO, I am afraid that does not make sense because, as I have said, the RMO is already defined in the 1983 Act. If he did not meet the requirements, it would mean that there would he no one in a position to make a supervision application in respect of the patient.
As regards the community RMO, the amendment identifies a principle of good practice. We agree that it is desirable that a doctor who is to act in this role should have special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. Doctors approved under Section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have a special knowledge of how the legislation works and an expertise in dealing with the kinds of patients to whom it may apply. We propose to emphasise in guidance that it would be desirable that the community RMO should be Section 12 approved.
I recognise that the provision for Scottish community care orders, in Clause 4 of the Bill, includes a requirement that the special medical officer—the Scottish equivalent of the community responsible medical officer—should be approved by a health board under Section 20 of the Scottish Act. But that is consistent with the existing provisions of that Act under which the responsible medical officer in a hospital is required to be approved under Section 20. Here, as in other areas, the difference reflects differences in the way practice has developed in the two jurisdictions and we think it is quite reasonable for that difference to be carried through into the present Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: As I understand it from my noble friend, the detailed description of the community RMO will be in guidance. I do not see why it cannot be included in Schedule I. What is so magic about guidance? To me, guidance does not mean as much. My noble friend was able to tell us about the responsible medical officer because there is a definition in the 1983 Act. I do not see why a similar sort of definition of the community RMO should not be included in Schedule I of this Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am sorry if I have not made that plain to my noble friend. To a large extent, the health service tries to work through guidance because it provides a degree of flexibility which may be extremely important, especially in relation to dealing with situations in the community.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the provision would be much more certain if such words were included on the face of the Bill. I heard what the noble Lord said about putting the wording he described into Schedule I rather than further on in the Bill as I proposed. However, it seems to me that it does not matter where it is placed as long as it is on the face of the Bill. I believe that the words that we have both used are very similar indeed.
114
I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Longford on the requirement for such a person to be "a registered psychiatrist". As far as I understand it, that would mean that he or she would need to be a consultant psychiatrist. From talking to people who organise such care, I believe that that would perhaps inhibit and slow down the procedures and the day-to-day care of people in that category.
There does not seem to me to be any legitimate argument for not using the words which are almost identical in the two amendments. As I said before, both sets of words come directly from the provisions in the Scottish clauses of the Bill. Although I entirely understand what the Minister said about the Scottish arrangements deriving from a different and original mental health Act, it does not seem to me that we need to be very much on our dignity at this stage about using such wording, which seems to be rather good.
Baroness Cumberlege: In respect of the proposed provisions, we believe that there may be cases in the future where it is justifiable for someone not approved under Section 12 to be the community RMO if in all other respects the care package is in the best interests of the patient. We are trying to build in that degree of flexibility by way of guidance rather than putting such provisions on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I remain unconvinced by the force of guidance in the health service. However, at this stage of the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("who must be a registered psychiatrist.").
The noble Earl said: I cannot pretend to be utterly extinguished by the arguments of my most revered leader or to be particularly impressed by anything that was said against such a provision. But in the circumstances I see that I have no option other than to refrain from moving my amendment.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) The Health Authority and Social Services Authority shall in providing after-care services indicate how they propose to deal with the matters listed in section 117 and Schedule I below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, 16 and 21. The group is tabled in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Jay and Lady Farrington of Ribbleton and deals with aftercare.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a new subsection into the legislation which states:
"The Health Authority and Social Services Authority shall in providing after-care services indicate how they propose to deal with the matters listed in section 117 and Schedule 1",

115
to the Bill. The point here is that subsection (6) of Clause 1 places a duty on the health authority to provide aftercare services, We understand that, but we feel that it is important that there should be some means of asking the two authorities concerned to indicate exactly how they propose to deal with the matters listed in Section 117. I remind the Committee that that is the section of the Mental Health Act 1983 which deals with aftercare.
I turn now to the other amendments which seek to improve the wording of Clause 1(7). It would be helpful if the Minister could deal with our concerns in this respect because we are somewhat puzzled. As the Bill is worded, we wonder whether in fact the health authority has the right to refuse an application. It is given a duty to provide aftercare services but, if it feels that it does not have the resources or if it does not agree with the supervision order, we believe that the legislation does not make it clear that the health authority can actually refuse.
It is important to probe the Government's mind on the matter. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 11 which links into Amendment No. 16, which states:
"A Health Authority or a Social Services authority shall have the right to refuse a supervision order".
The final amendment in the group is Amendment No. 21. Its purpose is, so to speak, to round up the arguments and to ensure that,
"the services are available to make effective the care programme as set out in the Care Programme Approach forms required for the discharge of all patients".
We believe that the Committee will understand that the amendments are intended to probe the whole area of aftercare to see whether the Bill has the intention that it should have; in other words, whether the health authority, the local authority or the social services authority have the power to refuse an application. We seek to discuss around the whole area whether the duty that the health authority will have under Section 117 of the 1983 Act requires it to state in terms how it proposes to deal with such a duty. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have one question to ask. I see the case very clearly for the health authority or the social services authority to be able to refuse a supervision order. However, I should like to ask both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Minister what happens next if an authority does so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In speaking to the group of amendments now before the Committee, I should like to speak especially to Amendment No. 13 which is tabled in my name. I listened most carefully at the informal meeting at which we had an opportunity to discuss some of the issues behind the proposed legislation; indeed, I found it to be extremely valuable.
However, from my experience as a member of a local authority responsible for social services, I remain concerned, especially in the light of the Minister's understanding that the provision will apply to a comparatively small number of people for whom
116
particularly sensitive care has to be provided, that in such circumstances the duty to "consult with" may be inadequate. If we look at some of the recent tragic cases which have contributed to an understanding of the need for the legislation, it will be seen that "consultation with" fell down. The requirement to "reach agreement with" is much firmer, stronger and, therefore, more secure and reliable. I ask the Minister to consider the following. If all parties reach agreement upon the care package and the supervision that will ensue, then the patients' interests and those of the community will be most secure.
I turn now to Amendment No. 16. The circumstances in which a supervision order could be refused are obviously hypothetical. But I assume that such a refusal would carry with it the right of appeal at some stage for the patient. However, it is critically important that all those professional partners who are part of producing such a care package must be confident that all the needs of the patient and those of the community have been met. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: Amendment No. 13 seems to me to be extremely good. I shall give the Committee just one more reason for it. A number of people suffering from mental illness of various sorts tend to be manipulative. As a symptom of some of the illnesses from which they may suffer, they tend to try to divide the authority which is dealing with them. If we do not insert such a provision into the Bill, we shall give them a wide open opportunity to do that, and that may well impede treatment. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Carter: Before the Minister replies, I must apologise to the Committee for not speaking to Amendment No. 12. Perhaps I may do so now so that the Minister can include it in her response. Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that the patient is heard by the health authority before any decision is reached. In other words, because the decision that the health authority is required to make is a judicial one which will affect the rights of the patient, such a decision should not be made without giving the patient a hearing. I should have addressed the amendment when moving Amendment No. 10. I apologise to the Committee for failing to do so. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the whole group in her reply.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. As the Committee will be aware, there is already a requirement to specify what services are to be provided under Section 117. New section 25B(8) states that a statement of the aftercare services to be provided for the patient under Section 117 must be submitted with or attached to the supervision application. This will be the detailed care plan drawn up by the multi-disciplinary team, which will outline the services to be provided to the patient following consultation with the appropriate parties—that is dealt with in new Section 25B(2)—and consideration of the appropriate matters as laid down in new Section 25B(2) and new Section 25B(3). We believe there is little point in requiring the authorities to reiterate what will anyhow be in the care plan.

117
I wish to pick up the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Given that the supervision application will only take effect when it is accepted by the health authority, we do not think it is necessary to spell out that the application may also be refused, since this is clearly so. Nor do we think that the health authority needs to be specifically required to reach agreement with the local authority. As the Committee will remember, the responsible medical officer before he or she makes an application, has to consult those who will be concerned in the patient's care after he or she leaves hospital. In practice the statement of services to be provided, which has to be submitted with the supervision application, will need to have been agreed with the local authority's representatives so far as the social services element is concerned. I think that takes care of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. This is reinforced by the requirement on the health authority to consult the local authority before it accepts the application, and we do not think it necessary therefore to add to that a specific requirement that the two authorities must reach agreement.
So far as consultation with the patient is concerned, as the Committee is aware, the RMO must consult him or her before the application is made in the first place, and we do not think a further requirement to consult the patient is needed at the point when it is being considered by the health authority. Finally, a person who is subject to aftercare under supervision is no longer liable to be detained. A patient may well have ceased to be so liable in what should usually be the short period after the application is made and before it is accepted.
In the light of those remarks that I have brought to the Committee's attention, I hope very much that the movers of these various amendments will not press them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope I may press the Minister on the specific use of the term "to consult". In her answer, which I look forward to reading in detail, I understood her to imply that that consultation would lead to an agreed package which would be presented as part of the order. My understanding, following the informal meeting, is that the role played by the responsible medical officer in the case of England and Wales is the equivalent role to that played by the sheriff in the different legal framework in Scotland. Is the Minister saying that it is only in the event of an agreed package being explicitly written down, which has been agreed and consented to by all parties, that consultation will be deemed to have been carried out, or would it be possible for one of the parties to take a unilateral decision in the absence of such consensus?
Baroness Cumberlege: I think it would be very unwise for any single party to take unilateral decisions because the whole purpose behind this Bill is that the different parties have to co-operate in order to meet the total needs of the patient. I should reiterate that the responsible medical officer, before he or she makes an application, has to consult those who will be concerned in the patient's care after he or she leaves hospital. I think it is in no one's interest not to have a care plan to
118
which everybody has signed up; otherwise, it will, I think, be impossible to supervise effectively the discharge of the patient in the community.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken to this group of amendments. It is helpful that the Minister has now made clear that the health authority has the right to refuse an application. That leads, on to the question which was put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If there is this ability to refuse, what happens next? We tabled the amendments to find out what happens next. I am not quite sure that the Minister has explained what happens if a health authority refuses an application.
Baroness Cumberlege: I would imagine it is a point of detail concerning the health authority. I would very much doubt that it is a matter of principle because there would have been a lot of consultation taking place with the responsible medical officer prior to any proposals being made for the discharge of the patient supervised in the community. I think the noble Lord perhaps has a point that is really not very worthwhile pursuing, because if all parties are not agreed, then, clearly, the scheme cannot go ahead. If it is a point of detail, then it is up to the health authority to put forward—I would have thought—some alternatives and to work around the problem. My experience is that professionals, both in social services and in the health service, are very caring, responsible people and they actually try to find solutions to sometimes almost intractable problems.
Earl Russell: I think this is slightly more complicated than the noble Baroness suggests. I agree with what she says about the attitudes of professionals, but refusal may happen for a number of reasons. Suppose, for example, a social services authority says, "If we do one more of these, we shall be capped", then it has to refuse. We really need to know what will happen to the patient next. This is not an imaginary question.
Baroness Cumberlege: I fully agree with the noble Earl. In fact, I have been in that position as the chairman of a health authority. We had an extremely difficult patient who needed not this sort of care but care in an institution and the only supplier of that was a private hospital and it cost a great deal of money. As anyone knows who is in charge of a budget, it is a question of having to be realistic. Sometimes it is a question of ensuring that priorities are reassessed; and sometimes it is a question of having to wait a month or two before one can activate a plan.
Lord Carter: The Minister has been extremely helpful. We may need to come back to this matter on Report because I think there is a danger as regards an absolute right to refuse without any criteria attached to that. The Minister says optimistically this would be a point of detail. If it is not a point of detail, it is still not clear what will happen next. However, we shall not go into that now. We shall read what has been said, perhaps take advice and return in due course. Finally, as regards consultation with the patient, of course there will be consultation with the patient before the package is designed. However, I should have thought it would make sense to have a consultation procedure—and for

119
this to be written into the Bill—after that process. After all, the patient is at the receiving end of all this. Obviously the RMO will have to discuss this matter with the patient at the beginning of the process. However, not to discuss this matter with the patient when the package has been designed seems a little odd. However, for the moment we have said enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("and that consultation shall include a consideration of using the procedure for guardianship established by section 7 above.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 14 is designed to probe the possibility that guardianship, which is already available in the 1983 Mental Health Act, could be used to achieve much the same results as the new rather cumbersome supervised aftercare provision which is the main element of this part of the Bill we are discussing. Members of the Committee who were present at Second Reading will recall that I briefly discussed guardianship then. I wish to return to it in a little more detail today. At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who replied to the debate for the Government, said,
"Guardianship is essentially an arrangement which is oriented to social care"—[Official Report, 16/03/95; col. 979.]
and that this new arrangement is differently centred from the health service.
I am advised that there is nothing which precludes guardianship from being used through health rather than social services. All that would be necessary would be for the order of discharge and guardianship to be dealt with by the health services rather than social services, as is suggested by Amendment No. 14.
Since Second Reading, my attention has been drawn to the detailed report on the case of Andrew Robinson, a severely mentally ill patient who in 1993 fatally wounded a care worker. Andrew Robinson had been looked after by mental health services both as an in-patient and in the community for the previous 15 years. South Devon Health Care Trust, which was responsible for him at the time of the fatal incident, instituted a public inquiry into Robinson's case, which was chaired by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. The results were published earlier this year.
The report noted that one of the relatively successful periods of Robinson's care in the community was when he was subject to a guardianship order between 1989 and 1992. That order was initiated by the consultant psychiatrist in charge of Mr. Robinson, and through it the health team and the social services negotiated a care plan with which Andrew Robinson complied in general. He achieved a period of comparative stability, largely because the guardianship order allowed a sustained relationship with his key worker and other members of the community care team. He voluntarily and regularly accepted medication during that period, although there
120
is nothing in the guardianship order to compel that, any more than there is in the proposed new supervised discharge order.
In that particular case, after three years the guardianship order was lifted and the consultant psychiatrist and key worker both left the district. But as the public inquiry report concludes:
"If the guardianship order had been continued…it is at least probable that the subsequent tragic events would have been avoided".
It seems to me that Mr. Robinson would have been a clear candidate for the kind of supervised discharge order that we are now discussing. The general points about the Robinson case are: first, the guardianship order to which he was subject was initiated and driven by a health team; secondly, it achieved a structured framework for a severely ill patient to live in the community; but, thirdly, because guardianship has commonly been used as a short-term measure, the order was lifted after three years without any clear or definite reason being given. However, as I understand it, there is nothing in the existing legislation to suggest that guardianship need be an exclusively short-term arrangement. As the Robinson report states, guardianship orders remain "woefully underused" and they appear to be used more often for older patients with dementia and those with learning difficulties.
I remind the Committee that the powers of guardianship include the power to require the patient to reside at a place specified by the authority or person named as guardian; the power to require the patient to attend at places and times so specified for the purpose of medical treatment, occupation, education and training; and the power to require access to the patient to be given, at any place where the patient is residing, to any registered medical practitioner, approved social worker or other person so specified.
The code of practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 on which guardianship is based states in paragraph 13.1 that:
"The purpose of guardianship is to enable patients to receive community care where it cannot be provided without the use of compulsory powers. It enables the establishment of an authoritative framework for working with a patient with a minimum of constraint to achieve as independent a life as possible within the community. Where it is used, it must be part of the patient's overall care and treatment plan".
It seems to me that that describes precisely the supervised discharge order, and it is almost identical to the proposals before us in the new legislation. If the Government's argument for not using guardianship more widely is simply that it has commonly been used by social services rather than health authorities for people other than those who are severely mentally ill, then the case of Andrew Robinson proves that that need not necessarily be the case. Robinson was indeed unusual but not unique. If the argument is that the procedure is rarely used because it is cumbersome and requires the commitment of many resources to be successful, then surely that same argument will apply to the supervised discharge orders in the future.
It is worth noting that the use of guardianship has been slowly growing in the past few years. There were only 66 such orders in 1983–84; in 1993–94, there were 326.
This probing amendment is designed to discover why the Government feel it necessary to bring in a new order of aftercare under supervision which must run in parallel with the guardianship order. Indeed, the new order could he totally redundant if the use of guardianship was expanded to cover more patients with severe mental illness. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I agree with the noble Baroness that it is right and proper to consider what power is in the patient's best interests. That consideration should surely come before the application to supervised discharge has been made. Essentially, it is a clinical decision about what is best for the patient.
Before a supervision application is made by the responsible medical officer there will have had to have been full multi-disciplinary consultation and a package of services drawn up and agreed between the health authority and the social services. It will surely be the case that before that process is under way, and long before the application reaches the health authority, consideration will have been given as to whether this is really the right power for the patient. Guardianship is available and will be considered as an alternative.
That is the Government's case for resisting the amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not seek to press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I thank the Minister for saying that guardianship will be included. If it is to he included, and if it is regarded by the Government as a possible and realistic alternative to the supervised discharge order, the question still remains why the new order is needed.
Baroness Cumberlege: There is a distinction between the social services driving the guardianship order and, in this case, the health authority driving the supervised discharge order. As I said, what is best for the patient is essentially a clinical decision. If it is felt that perhaps a less onerous order should be made, then it is up to the social services department, in consultation with the health authority, to seek guardianship. However, if the guardianship order is felt not to be strong enough, then this is an alternative.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry to press the Minister on this point; but can she tell the Committee precisely where guardianship, as I described it, under the provisions of the 1983 Act and the code of practice is less onerous than the supervised discharge order? Can she comment on the case of Mr. Andrew Robinson? I agree that it was a specific case; but I understand that it is not unique. In that case the guardianship order was indeed driven by the health authority and not by social services.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may interject one more question before the Minister replies. The Law Society
122
has made some interesting observations on the subject of guardianship. It suggests that the reluctance of local authorities in the past has been because:
"they are unwilling or unable to devote sufficient resources to the care and supervision of people subject to guardianship".
In fact, the obstacle to the spread of guardianship is one of resources. That of course is the one obstacle which this Bill does not address.
Baroness Cumberlege: It is a different power. The power of guardianship ensures that the guardian has the power to require the patient to live in a specified place and to attend specified places for the purposes of medical treatment, occupation, education or training and to require access to the patient to be given to any registered practitioner, approved social worker or other specified person. However, there is no power to convey. The supervised discharge gives that power to convey. It gives the initiative to the responsible medical officer to activate this new power.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We shall need to return to this subject on Report. I recall mentioning at Second Reading one of the suggestions for an amendment proposed by the Law Commission to the Mental Health Act 1983, which is to add the power to convey to the guardianship order.
I am still unclear where the guardianship order is less onerous than the supervised discharge order. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The Health Authority shall defer the acceptance of a supervision application until such arrangements as appear to the Authority to be necessary for the provision of medical treatment and after-care services to the patient following the acceptance of the application have been made to the satisfaction of the Authority.
( ) If, on the date when a patient ceases to be liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act, a supervision application has been made in respect of him but the Health Authority have not yet accepted the application, his liability to be so detained shall continue until the Authority either accept or refuse it.").
The noble Lord said: My Amendment No. 15 introduces two new subsections to Clause 1. The aim is to ensure that the supervision application accepted by the health authority is not a piece of paper full of pious hopes for patient care on discharge from hospital. The application should identify specific arrangements which have been made for patients' medical treatment, housing and other appropriate social services. The amendment provides that they cannot be accepted by the health authority until those arrangements are in place.
The second subsection aims to ensure that if patients are considered to need aftercare under supervision and an application for that has been made but has not yet been accepted or rejected by the health authority, they should continue to be detained in hospital until a decision is made one way or another. If the application is accepted, the specific arrangements needed for appropriate aftercare must be in place. Patients would then receive the services they require immediately after discharge.
The extra subsections proposed in this part of the Bill reflect exactly what is proposed for Scotland in the new Section 35A (5), (6) and (7), which seem to me to be most sensible and which we discussed at the informal meeting. They are given but scant attention in the piece of paper telling us what went on at the meeting. I hope that this time my noble friend will not think that because the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 is triggered by other legislation, this rather sensible arrangement to ensure that people are not discharged under those circumstances unless the services that they require are to hand, should not equally well apply in England and Wales, just as the Scots seem to think that the provisions apply in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is correct. The provision of effective aftercare services is essential to the success of aftercare supervision orders. Health authorities and local authorities must not agree to something which they cannot deliver.
Baroness Cumberlege: As my noble friend explained, the provisions which the amendment would insert are based on those already included in Clause 4 of the Bill which introduces community care orders for Scotland. Our view, however, is that such a provision is not needed in the England and Wales context—I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend—because of the different way in which the two powers are framed.
The corresponding Scottish provisions would allow the sheriff to defer making a community care order until the necessary medical treatment and aftercare services had been arranged. If this process had not been completed by the time the patient's liability to be detained ran out, the Scottish clause would extend the liability to allow this to be done.
The procedure reflects the different Scottish legal framework and in particular the position occupied by the sheriff. In England and Wales, under the provisions of Clause I the application for aftercare under supervision is made to the health authority. That authority is responsible for providing one element of the aftercare services, and before it accepts the application it must consult the local authority. It is, of course, the local authority which will be responsible for the social care element of the services. As the Committee is aware, those two bodies have a statutory responsibility for providing services under Section 117 of the 1983 Act. Given the way in which the bodies will be directly involved in the application process, there should be no question of the application being accepted before the necessary arrangements have been made. On that basis, I do not believe that this is something for which the Bill needs to provide. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the Minister on the situation in the event of there being difficulty. I fully understand the description that the Minister gave in her reply about what would happen if everything was working smoothly and everyone was in agreement. The difficulty is in cases of tragedies which have occurred so far and which we seek to
124
prevent in the future. With them, there is a difference, not about whether there should be a range of aftercare provision, but the level and quality of the aftercare that is necessary to secure the safety of both the patient and other people in the community.
Were the health authority to feel that adequate provision was capable of being made and the social services or the housing authorities were of the view that the services available at that time were inadequate in the interests of the patient, what would be the position?
Baroness Cumberlege: Before and during the course of the drafting of the Bill, we had consultations with many people. We received some interesting correspondence from parents and relatives of those who had come to a tragic end due to their mental illness and lack of supervision in the community. I could cite cases where we have been given the permission of relatives to discuss their sons and daughters. However, perhaps this is not the appropriate time for that. I am prepared informally to discuss them with the noble Baroness to persuade her that the power is necessary.
The whole purpose, ethos and direction of the Bill will only succeed if there is consultation and agreement and if both parties work closely together. Through the care plan and various other mechanisms that we have not only built into this Bill but also considered prior to the Bill coming before your Lordships' House, we have tried to engage all the different agencies and individuals involved. I accept that we cannot legislate for a perfect world. There will be occasions when things do not work quite as we would wish. But in the end one returns to the professionalism of those involved. With negotiation and reason it is possible to overcome some of the problems.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for her explanation and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her contribution. I am slightly worried that there is the feeling in London that we must not necessarily do everything that people do in Scotland because other people think that it is better. There may be an undercurrent of that here. I see my noble friend shaking her head; she does not feel that way but there are many people who advise her.
It is useful to have the deferment provision on the face of the Bill. I agree that my amendments are not the end of the story and will read with great care what my noble friend and the noble Baroness said. Perhaps I shall be able to produce something better at the next stage of the Bill. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 19 in the names of myself and my noble friend Lady Jay. The

125
amendment is quite clear, it inserts the words "in writing" into the Bill at the end of subsection (8) (a) so that the provision would read:
"inform the patient in writing".
That is obviously intended to improve the provision for informing the patient that a supervision application has been accepted by the health authority. One cannot imagine that the health authority would do it in any other way than in writing, so I cannot see why the Government should not be prepared to accept the amendment and have the provision on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 19 proposes to insert at the end of line 37 on page 2 the words:
"and the Health Authority shall also inform the patient, both orally and in writing, of his right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and to be legally represented at the Tribunal hearing".
That is to ensure that patients are informed of their right of appeal against being subject to compulsory powers of supervision and of their right to receive legal advice and representation.
The Government suggest that adequate safeguards to protect the rights of patients subject to aftercare under supervision will be provided by allowing patients to apply to the mental health review tribunal (MHRT). But those safeguards are useless unless the patients are informed of their rights—not only their right of appeal but also their right to free legal advice and representation.
Section 132 of the 1983 Act sets out in terms the duty of hospital managers to give to patients detained under the Act information about not only the legal authority under which they are detained but also their rights to apply to the MHRT. That is spelt out clearly. Managers are also required to take steps to ensure that the patient understands what he is being told. We are advised that similar provisions are required in relation to aftercare under supervision. If the duty is laid on hospital managers under the 1983 Act, we feel that it should also be spelt out in the Bill.
Some recent research suggests that patients are not properly informed of their right to appeal to the mental health review tribunal under the 1983 Act, There was an article in the British Medical Journal of 11th February this year. The research concluded that,
"our results suggest that the appeals procedure for Section 2 of the Mental Health Act is not a satisfactory way of protecting civil liberties of patients. The procedure has two main flaws: firstly, the patient has to initiate the appeal and, secondly, there is an unsatisfactory method for informing patients of their right to appeal. As a result the procedure favours patients who are well educated or have had previous admissions, but it works against patients suffering from depression or dementia. If patients were fully informed of their rights there might be a considerable increase in the number of appeals".
The object of the two amendments is to improve the provisions for informing patients that a supervision application has been made. When that application has been made, the patient should be informed both orally and in writing of his right to apply to a mental health review tribunal, to be legally represented, and to receive free legal aid. That should all be clearly understood. We feel that it should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to take this opportunity to ask a question about Amendment No. 19.
126
I am under the impression that one cannot get legal aid at a tribunal. I know that legal advice can be obtained through the citizens advice bureaux; but the person being represented at a tribunal of any kind has to pay the whole of the costs. I wonder in this case who would bear the costs for the person to be legally represented. I am not very familiar with the procedure.
Lord Carter: The brief that I have from the Law Society clearly speaks of the right to free legal advice and representation. I rely on the advice of the Law Society. Perhaps the Minister can also advise on the matter.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord. I understand that legal aid is available for hearings at these tribunals.
I can see the case for the amendments. The acceptance of a supervision application is a significant milestone in the treatment and rehabilitation of, and the legal requirements on, a patient. I recognise the argument that he (or she) should have documentary evidence. We should not want to prescribe the form that that documentation should take. That would be a matter for the health authority and the trust to which that role would be delegated. But we propose to consider the amendment very carefully.
I also firmly believe that the patients should be aware of their rights. The second amendment seeks to make it mandatory that a patient who is subject to aftercare under supervision will be told formally about his (or her) rights to a mental health review tribunal. Patients who are detained in hospital must be told of their rights to a tribunal by the hospital managers. For those in the community—those subject to guardianship—there is no equivalent provision in the Act. We followed the same principle in drafting this Bill. However, we recognise that, where a patient is to be informed in writing that an application for supervision has been accepted, he should also be informed at the same time of his appeal rights. Therefore, we shall give the amendment further consideration.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It is hard to see how one can redraft and improve on the limpid clarity of the two words "in writing". It will be interesting to see what the department comes up with. I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 33, after ("requests") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 60, 61, 63 and 65. The amendments cover three subjects. They all relate to the nearest relatives and their position under the Bill. Without going into detail some of the amendments relate to adding the words "in writing". I shall explain that later. Other amendments relate to being part of the process of consultation to a greater extent than the Bill currently provides; and some concern being provided with information to a greater extent than the Bill provides.
Perhaps I may spell out why the nearest relatives are more important than has been allowed for in the Bill. I remind the Committee that I am advised on this matter by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship whose members consist on the whole of nearest relatives. They know what they are talking about.
An application for aftercare under supervision cannot be made under the terms of the Bill by a responsible medical officer unless he consults various professionals and,
"any person who the responsible medical officer believes will play a substantial part in the care of the patient after he leaves hospital but will not be professionally concerned with any of the after-care services to be so provided".
I quote from Clause 1—the new Section 25B(2) (d).
The responsible medical officer is therefore not required specifically to consult the patient's nearest relative. It can be argued that if the nearest relatives are not playing a substantial part in the care of members of their family they should for that reason lose any right to be consulted. However, they may live far away from the patient. They may be, and sometimes are, advised by doctors that it is better for the patient's health if non-professionals who are not family members provide the major part of the care after discharge as they are not emotionally involved. They may be unable, because of other family commitments, to shoulder a substantial part of the patient's care. They may feel unable to do so because they simply cannot cope with the illness.
Members of the NSF, mostly relatives of someone with schizophrenia, feel strongly, even when they are not the main professional care givers at any one time, that they are often the only people with a continuing concern for patients —I emphasise "continuing"—who have knowledge of their personal history, their interests and their social networks. They frequently provide a great deal of back-up and should not be excluded from the consultations required in the Bill. The relevant amendments are Amendments Nos. 31, 50, 52 and 61.
Those people believe that where practicable they should be named on the supervision application and consulted when it is made, reviewed, extended or ended; that is to say, they should be consulted. The amendments which relate to consultation are Amendments Nos. 24, 30, 40, 58 and 63.
The Ritchie Report on the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis recommended that in any supervised discharge order the patient's relative should be named. Nearest relatives accept that sometimes patients do not wish them to be involved, and that it is reasonable, if they are not playing a substantial part in their care, to give patients the power to ask that they should not be consulted and informed about the supervision application. Indeed, that is very much in the Bill as it stands. Nevertheless, patients can sometimes make such requests on the spur of the moment and change their minds rapidly. The Ritchie Report illustrates that when it says,
128
"There were many times when Christopher Clunis would not tell those who were trying to help him the names and addresses of his family. But there were also many times when he did so … Too often his refusal to allow access to his family to those who were caring for him was accepted without question or investigation".
It was felt that Christopher Clunis's family could have been much more of a help to him if only health and social workers had maintained contact with them. It is therefore suggested that patients who do not want their nearest relatives informed or consulted should make that request in writing which would then be a more considered action. The point is that if somebody is asked, "Do you want your family to know?", the patient may say off the top of his head, "No, not those terrible people". If the patient is then asked, "Do you really not want them to know and if so would you mind writing it down?" then the patients concerned may think twice. They may decide that their families were not always harmful and the Christopher Clunis examples were of that nature. The amendments which contain the words "in writing" are Amendments Nos. 18, 33, 47, 49, 51, 55, 60 and 65. They are the ones that require this added reason to make sure that the patient concerned means what he says when he says that he does not want his family anywhere near him.
There is also concern that patients should not be able to prevent the nearest relative knowing what is happening if they are at risk of violence, which the history of the illness may show is a real possibility. Amendment No. 27 relates to that issue. In this case I am definitely proposing that even where the patient says he does not want his relatives to know, there may be occasions when the responsible medical officer has reason to believe that it may assist the aftercare supervision of the patient if the relative was consulted, even if the patient was not told of that, and that may be particularly so when the patient has a history of violence.
All the amendments relate to the same subject and I do not expect an immediate answer from my noble friend saying that she will accept this amendment but not that one. However, I hope that she will be able to say that the Government will give consideration to these matters of how relatives can be embodied more fully into the process than is currently the case. We will not accept the argument that, as it does not say they have to be kept out in every case, that means that they could come in. I have tried with the amendment to bring them in because all too frequently we find that people who are looking after mentally ill patients do not necessarily consult with everybody, including the nearest relative, if their name does not appear in the relevant regulations. Simply not having them there in the hopes that the social worker, medical officer or whoever it is will automatically think of them is not good enough in many cases. Though I would not want to overdo it—we have tried hard not to—something along the lines of what I suggested would be worthwhile and I hope that my noble friend can give the matter a sympathetic hearing. If we do not bring it off at this stage, perhaps we can improve on it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I want to add to what my noble friend said by pointing out that a sufferer from

129
mental illness may not wish a nearest relative to be involved and that may be from a misplaced feeling of inadequacy, like other hallucinations experienced by those who suffer from schizophrenia. Furthermore, sometimes the medical profession tells parents that they must have no contact with a schizophrenic son or daughter for a considerable period—it may last for years—and also that the parents must not expect any contact in reverse. That is because it is helpful to the sufferer to be in that situation. Also, where the near relative is not playing a substantial part in the care of the sufferer, it is reasonable to give the patient the power to ask that the nearest relative not be consulted and informed about the supervision application. However, the nearest relative is usually the person most worried, concerned and wishing to help in every possible way, even though the nearest relative may have been told to keep at a distance.
My noble friend has already quoted from the admirable report by Mrs. Ritchie, QC, so I need not say more on that. The report, after the inquiry, brought out the need for consultation with families. My view is that we should not shut out the nearest relative unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so. Accordingly, I support the principle of my noble friend's amendments.
The days of undue reticence about mental illness are past and it should not be brushed under the carpet. I happen to be the nearest relative of a sufferer from schizophrenia—not a violent one, I quickly add—and am therefore one of the people, and have been for 25 years, whom we are discussing in these amendments. The sufferer has been in institutions and in systems both in Scotland and in England and I am therefore in a good position to comment on both parts of the Bill. Families have gained much experience from which they can contribute, particularly close members of families. They can make suggestions and provide information of value and sometimes of importance to the care arrangements being made. I hope that I have helped the Committee with this brief contribution based on years of experience of being a "nearest" relative.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, or the Minister can say who will decide who is the nearest relative. That may sound like an odd question and, as has been shown by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, there is no question about that. But we all know what my children would call "dysfunctional families" where the nearest relative is someone with whom the patient involved has long since fallen out. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will consider whether or not the patient should be consulted as to whom they will nominate as their nearest relative rather than simply going down the list as it is presently drawn up under the Mental Health Act.
Baroness Cumberlege: I would hate to shoot my noble friend's fox and perhaps he would like to respond a little later. In reply to the general debate I am very much aware of my noble friend's anxieties in relation to the position of the nearest relative. We acknowledge the vital part played by families in providing support to patients and their natural wish to know what is
130
happening to a close relative, especially when they have been seriously ill or even regarded as potentially dangerous.
At the same time not all relatives are on good terms and family relationships may have broken down for any one of a number of reasons and over a number of years before the discharge of a patient would be considered in these circumstances. In the Bill as it was introduced we have sought to strike a balance by requiring an informal carer who is going to be actively involved in looking after the patient—and who may be the nearest relative—to be consulted about the making of a supervision application and other matters, and otherwise requiring the nearest relative to be informed of these matters, unless the patient objects, once they have been decided. I understand that the definition of "nearest relative" is contained in Section 26 of the 1983 Act. It is there if the noble Baroness wishes to look it up.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I suspect that it is simply a list—if it is not the parent, it is the grandparent. I cannot remember the precise order. There is a substitution list, as it were, but there is not an indication that the patient may say, "If it is not the parent, I would prefer my great aunt or my second cousin".
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness is correct. It sounds like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan—his sisters, his cousins and his aunts. I take the noble Baroness's point. It is one which we may consider.
I recognise that my noble friend has a number of arguments for extending the scope of consultation to include the nearest relative, even if he or she is not acting as an informal carer, and I am ready to consider very carefully the points which my noble friend, the noble Baroness and my other noble friend have made during the debate.
What I do not find so immediately persuasive is the argument that any objection by the patient should have to be recorded in writing. The Bill as it stands provides that the nearest relative, whether he or she is identified, will be given information unless the patient objects. The word "unless" is important because it means the presumption is that the nearest relative will be informed. We are not, however, convinced that this should have to be in writing. Patients may well make irrational or inconsistent demands, but we are not convinced that requiring them to put pen to paper—if indeed they can—will provide any further proof of their wishes. We think that these should be respected unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so.
Finally, in the context of the other amendment proposed by my noble friend, I understand his intentions when he proposes that, should a patient refuse to agree that his nearest relative should be consulted about making a supervision application, the responsible medical officer may ask the health authority for approval to do so. The patient's dangerous behaviour is one of the risk factors to be taken into account before recommending discharge under supervision. If, having consulted those directly involved —whether or not this ultimately includes the nearest relative, as my noble friend proposes—the responsible medical officer, along

131
with those supporting his application, is satisfied that the risk can be contained with the help of supervision, arrangements should proceed without the addition of further procedures.
As I have said, we are prepared to give further consideration to the general question of consultation with relatives which is raised in these amendments. On that basis I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before we leave the subject of the nearest relative, perhaps I may draw one point to the Committee's attention. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is right to differentiate between the roles of the nearest relative and the carer, although sometimes they are the same person. It is important not to diminish the role of the nearest relative even if the patient cannot stand the nearest relative. The reason is that in the context of inherited wealth—this is relevant to this House—the nearest relative may reluctantly have to safeguard and administer property, investments or business interests which belong to the patient. In compulsory mental health measures in Scotland a social worker working as a mental health officer or aftercare officer must see to the affairs of the patient. While that is wholly appropriate with regard to safeguarding a tenancy, we do not really expect a social worker to be running an estate, a business or the like. It is very important that we keep the nearest relative well involved. They will be performing what is no doubt a reluctant duty, backed up by a power of attorney.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for her reply and in particular for saying that she will look further at how we can involve the nearest relative more closely than is currently the position. I am most grateful for that. I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who speaks as an expert, for his support.
With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, Section 26 of the 1983 Act goes a little further than just giving a list of relationships. It gives some advice on how they might be picked out, one against the other. There are seven subsections which are quite helpful in this general area. As I understand it, it is not on the whole difficult to identify the nearest relative. However, there are special cases. I have not had time to read Section 26 properly but it no doubt gives us enough guidance to deal with that.
I got the slight impression from what my noble friend the Minister said that she is sympathetic to the phraseology of my Amendment No. 27; or was she saying to me that what is proposed there is already in the Bill? Amendment No. 27 is slightly different from the other amendments because it specifically says that, even when the patient does not want the nearest relative to know, the responsible medical officer can, with approval, override that. If that is so, is she saying to me that that is set out elsewhere in the Bill or is she saying that she will include that in what she might herself
132
propose when she sees whether she can go a step further in bringing the nearest relative into the Bill? Perhaps she can give me a line on that before I conclude.
Baroness Cumberlege: Where a patient refuses to agree that the nearest relative should be consulted about making a supervision application the responsible medical officer may ask the health authority for approval to do so.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend. I am most grateful to her for her undertaking to look further at this area. With the proviso that I may come through with some more amendments, too, just to make sure that we cover all the lost ground, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) On the acceptance by the Health Authority of the supervision application in respect of a patient, he shall cease to be liable to be detained in a hospital under the provisions of this Act").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 is intended to clarify that aftercare under supervision applies only to patients who have been discharged from hospital into the community and who are therefore no longer liable to be detained. As it is currently drafted, the first part of the Bill does not make clear that patients subject to aftercare under supervision should no longer be liable to be detained under the 1983 Act and hence liable to recall to hospital. As always, this point is, however, made clear in relation to community care orders in Scotland. Clause 4—Section 35A(8)—states clearly:
"On the coming into force of a community care order in respect of a patient, he shall cease to be liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act".
Every time we look at the Bill and we see how much better things are in Scotland, I cannot help feeling that devolution should perhaps come the other way.
This amendment would also bring the Bill into line with provisions for guardianship under the Mental Health Act 1983. Section 8(5) of that Act clarifies that patients received into guardianship are no longer liable to be detained. Subsection (5) states:
"Where a patient is received into guardianship in pursuance of a guardianship application, any previous application under this Part of this Act by virtue of which he was subject to guardianship or liable to be detained in a hospital shall cease to have effect".
So if it is made clear in that part of the 1983 Act and in the latter part of the Act which deals with Scotland, we cannot see why that provision should not also be in the first part of the Bill as this amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: We expect a health authority to accept a supervision application as soon as the authority—or the provider to whom acceptance will in practice be delegated (a trust)—is satisfied that the application has been properly made. That is that everyone who should have been has been consulted and has agreed the provision of the services the patient needs.

133
In the ordinary way we would expect the patient to be discharged as soon as possible after the application had been accepted, and at that point he or she would cease to be liable to be detained. However, if for any reason there was a time lag between acceptance of the application and the patient's discharge—for example, because some practical problem had arisen with the aftercare arrangements—we can see no advantage in ending the liability to be detained at an earlier point. I believe that to be the explanation, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Carter: It is not entirely clear why there should be this difference. On the other side of the Border a patient in Scotland, under this Bill, would cease to be liable to be detained, whereas a patient a few miles away in England would still be liable to be detained. Is that correct or is there a difference in the force of a supervision order and a community care order as there is in Scotland?
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand it, the Scottish Act is very different from ours. It involves sheriffs and courts in a way that our Act does not. Therefore, we are always going to find differences between the way in which we promote our Bills and Scottish Bills. I appreciate that some people feel that in Scotland matters are dealt with better, but not always.
Lord Carter: I shall need to take advice on this matter. I shall read what the Minister has said, but I am still not entirely clear about the difference. There was also the point about the Mental Health Act which I raised. At this point I shall consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 48, at end insert ("and any person authorised by the patient to act as their representative").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak as well to Amendment No. 23. Both these amendments are designed to achieve as far as possible a consensual approach to aftercare in the community which is to be organised on behalf of the patient being discharged under a supervised discharge order, and that it should be discussed not simply with the professionals involved, both in the hospital and in the community, but with someone whom the patient personally trusts to act as his representative. It is important that that should be done whenever arrangements about the discharge order are to be discussed.
Amendment No. 22 seeks the informal involvement of someone trusted by the patient at the time the supervised discharge is being planned. It has been pointed out to me that that should probably be done while the patient may still be in an acute phase of mental illness as an in-patient in hospital because, given the number of consultations and agreements which need to be discussed before a patient can be properly discharged, probably it should be done some time before that discharge is appropriate. As the Bill currently proposes, the patient is being detained in hospital under
134
a treatment order, which by definition means that he is not judged to be able to make a rational judgment about his health or safety needs at that time.
The Mental Health After Care Association has suggested that it would at that point perhaps be sensible to allow the patient to be accompanied at any discussion, or that he should be represented there by someone from the legal profession, a user advocacy group or an experienced agency such as the citizens advice bureaux. That is allowed for in Amendment No. 23 where the responsible medical officer could make what from the patient's point of view would seem to be an arbitrary decision about who was likely to be the significant informal carer with whom the patient would relate once discharged into the community.
We have heard this afternoon, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the important recommendations which were made in the report by Jean Ritchie QC and her colleagues on the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis. Perhaps I may read briefly from the recommendations in this area. The patient should have a befriender or advocate. That is before the supervised discharge order was being proposed and this provision was suggested under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. The report states:
"We are concerned that the patient very often considers that the …. aftercare plan is made at his expense rather than for his benefit. Although it is vital that the patient should, himself, participate in the formation of the plan, we consider that the patient needs someone to be his ally/befriender/advocate in relation to …. aftercare. That befriender should attend all S 117 meetings with the patient, should champion his cause, and should ensure that action which is supposed to happen under the plan, does in fact happen".
That goes back to some of the earlier amendments which we have discussed this afternoon.
The report goes on to make specific and formal recommendations, including:
"Every patient, subject to S 117 Mental Health Act 1983 aftercare, should have a nominated relative, friend or volunteer to act as his befriender/advocate, unless the patient expressly states to the contrary. Statutory Authorities and Voluntary Agencies working in the field of mental health should recruit, train and support members of the public who wish to be S 117 befrienders. A copy of the current aftercare plan should be given to the befriender".
It seems to me that it is irrelevant to discuss which terminology or name we prefer for that person. There may be some people in this Committee who regard the word "befriender" as somewhat elaborate and inappropriate. But the idea behind the support and advocacy on behalf of the patient by someone in whom the patient has trust goes a long way towards reinforcing the consensual nature of the agreement on the supervised discharge order which has been the underlying part of our discussions throughout this afternoon. It again emphasises that, as far as possible, a discharge supervision order should be made with the explicit co-operation of the patient and be determined by a very non-coercive approach. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I caution great care in this area. I am advised that it is quite possible for people belonging to organisations which are perhaps not the ones which the noble Baroness has quoted to cash in on this sort of thing. They may come in and perhaps put themselves

135
forward as befrienders, but in fact they may be people who are not going to be all that friendly. They may take advantage of the situation for themselves.
At the moment the Bill deals with the nearest relative, and my noble friend says that it may do so a little more than it does at present. It deals with people who will look after the patient in supervised aftercare. To have this extra body which may come from a rather sinister source needs to be kept very carefully out of the Bill, if possible, without wishing to say that someone who is genuine needs to be excluded, too. I suggest caution.
Baroness Cumberlege: Consultation is a thread running through the provisions of this Bill. We believe that at each stage of the process—before application, before renewal and before termination—there should be full consultation with all those who will be involved in the aftercare services: the patient and those who have the closest part to play in providing the services. That is spelt out clearly in the Bill.
As I understand this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, seeks an advocate—a patient's representative, befriender or whatever term is chosen—to be included among those consulted, If the patient has an advocate, the responsible medical officer may well discuss the application with him or her in the presence of the patient. But I think it would be onerous to require the RMO to consult such an individual as well as the other persons he must consult.
It is hard to envisage a situation whereby a patient could be consulted about the possibility of supervised discharge without establishing who the relatives, friends or others who would have to play a substantial but non-professional part in his support in the community would actually be. We are talking about those with whom he would live, or be visited by, or who would support him in some other important way. That will be part of the care package that is worked out with the patient and, having established that with the patient's help, it should not be necessary to seek the patient's formal agreement to consulting any such person about his discharge under these provisions. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, we do not think that the amendments are necessary, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am impressed by the theory of what the Minister has said, but I am less certain about whether it will work in practice. I am also a little concerned by what I have come to believe is the rather romantic view that is held by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of the existence of the family network of many of the people about whom we are talking. I suspect that many of them are what are colloquially known as the "homeless and rootless", people for whom the identification of the "closest relative" about whom we were speaking previously would be difficult.
The recommendations are drawn directly from the explicit case of Christopher Clunis that was considered by Mrs. Ritchie and her colleagues. Members of the
136
Committee will remember that that was the most recent violent example of how the system can go wrong in practice, however good the intentions.
I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about keeping the advocacy role away from those who may seek to promote themselves or their own views in that context. However, I believe that there are in this world enough people with a genuine concern about establishing a good care package for patients and about meeting their wishes who could be, as the Ritchie Report suggested, trained by the statutory agencies. That is the relevant point. Therefore, I do not accept the view of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is a redundant role. As I have said, I quibble slightly with the word "befriender", but I accept that there is a case for having a neutral voice of advocacy, particularly just before discharge, when the patient may well still be ill and confused. That is important. I shall read what the Minister has said and, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) a registered psychiatrist who will not be involved in the provision of after care services to the patient; and
( ) an independent solicitor").
The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, brought before us the wisdom of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and rightly said that it knows what it is talking about. I do the same for a more recently formed but equally effective body, the Matthew Trust, which attaches great importance to both parts of this amendment.
One has to ask oneself whether there are sufficient safeguards as things are. I am not expecting a definite assent to my amendment from the Minister this afternoon; I am simply asking her to think it over. Before the next stage, it may be possible for us to persuade her that there is widespread support among your Lordships for the amendment. In practice, it amounts to saying that if someone is to be put under supervision, it is necessary to have a second psychiatric opinion and, if possible, to ensure that an independent solicitor is brought in. I appreciate that in an earlier decision today the need to consult a psychiatrist in the first place was not accepted; so some modification of what is proposed might be needed. However, I am moving the amendment now to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to say that she will consider the matter. If she finds that there is widespread support in the Committee for the need for further safeguards, I am sure that she will be the first to admit it. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I sympathise with the motives behind the noble Earl's amendment, but it is perhaps unduly prescriptive. Also, I am not sure that it allows for the fact that there may be a need for haste in some cases. When one is dealing with someone with acute mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, it is often possible that the patient may commit suicide within the next few hours. Therefore, one needs a power which will not have

137
to wait until a consultant psychiatrist and a solicitor can be called in. If one waits, the patient may not be alive at the end of it.
In this Bill, we are dealing with a conflict between arguments of safety and arguments of liberty. We on these Benches have always been second to none in the respect that we give to arguments of liberty. I am not quite sure how well applied they are to this Bill. In the words of John Stuart Mill:
"Liberty consists in doing what one desires, and one does not desire to fall into the water".
He was arguing that you could forcibly restrain somebody from crossing a broken bridge when they did not know that it was broken. That passage also applies to the case of mental illness. Obviously, libertarian considerations can be important, and things have been done in the past upon which one looks back with dismay. But mistakes can be made both on one side and on the other; so I think that we have to be careful when following the libertarian criticisms of the Bill to the point where they may present a real risk to the safety of the patient. In this area I think that the Bill has come as near as it reasonably can to getting it right.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I agree with the noble Earl that it is precisely that balancing act that is the most difficult to achieve—
The Earl of Longford: Which noble Earl?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Longford. I was referring to the noble Earl who had just spoken—the noble Earl, Lord Russell. A plethora of noble Earls is involved in this amendment.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Bill has achieved a balancing act, although it has sometimes fallen down on one side and sometimes on the other as between questions of civil liberties and safety. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to address one specific point. Although I understand what he is saying about the need for speed when dealing with the severely mentally ill, surely that concern would be more appropriate when the patient is to be admitted to hospital. The amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford, refers to the time when the patient is about to be discharged when presumably the question of his imminent self-harm or the threat of suicide must be reduced, otherwise the supervised discharge order would not have been considered.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may answer that briefly. I have known people who have changed from one of those states to the other within the space of half an hour, and you cannot see it coming.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Surely that is an argument for delay. It would be useful if an independent solicitor and another psychiatrist were found before such a terrible clinical situation happened.
Lord Mottistone: Who is to pay for those eminent gentlemen—
Baroness Cumberlege: Or women?
I have already said that consultation is a thread running through the provisions of this Bill and have drawn your Lordships' attention to the requirements for consultation with the patient and others at the various stages of aftercare under supervision.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, wishes to add another doctor, a registered psychiatrist, to this list of people the responsible medical officer must consult. As I have already pointed out on the noble Earl's earlier amendment, there is no legal provision for psychiatrists to be registered as such. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl, but in any case we think such a requirement is unnecessary. The additional doctor would not be involved in the provision of aftercare services. If the purpose is to have an independent voice, speaking up for the patient, there are already proper safeguards for the patient in the Bill. The RMO must not only consult the various people listed under new Section 25B(2) but his application must be supported by two recommendations—one from an approved social worker, the other from a registered medical practitioner who will be professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment after he or she leaves hospital. That mirrors the procedure for applications for detention under the Act.
The amendment would also require an independent solicitor to be consulted. We do not think that is justified. Patients will have the right to appeal to a mental health review tribunal against the imposition and renewal of supervised discharge. At tribunals they have full access to legal representation which is free. We have made additional financial provision for the anticipated extra tribunal hearings because of the introduction of supervised discharge, as noted in the financial memorandum. Against that background, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Longford: I enjoyed the exchange between one of the other noble Earls and my noble Leader. I am bound to say that that master of logic, the father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have felt that the balance of the argument on this occasion lay with my noble friend Lady Jay. It may well be that before the next stage there will be a great volume of support for this amendment. I cannot say. If there is, I shall return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert
("and ( ) the Mental Health Act Commission.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 26 seeks to extend the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to include patients who will be receiving aftercare under supervision; that is, the patients we have been discussing this afternoon. In Scotland the Bill extends the role of the Mental Welfare Commission to cover patients who are subject to community care orders. I can only echo the words of my noble friend Lord Carter about the extraordinary advantages of reverse devolution in this case.
I am advised by, among others, the immediate past chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission that to introduce this extension of the MHAC's role in this way will be a very effective way of monitoring and evaluating the supervised aftercare provisions. For example, one of the problems about guardianship, which has been discussed this afternoon, is that little is known centrally about the number of people who are dealt with under the different forms of order in the community, and it is very difficult to maintain records of them. I refer back to the case of Andrew Robinson, the subject of the public inquiry chaired by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC. One of the problems that arose in that case was the absence of a central register of the different types of care that he had received in different communities as he moved about the country. I go back to the point that I made on the previous amendment. So many of the people who will be subject to these orders may be described broadly as the homeless and rootless. To try to keep tabs on where they are and what they are doing is advantageous both from the point of view of maintaining contact with them and from the point of view of evaluating the services they receive to see whether they are effective.
One of the arguments advanced by several noble Lords at Second Reading was that this Bill should have been brought forward in the context of a general revision of the mental health Acts. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said in reply:
"I wish to conclude by acknowledging the case for considering whether the Acts still reflect current practice … Our view is that we wish to take stock of the new powers that we propose should be introduced in the Bill before considering any further fundamental changes." [Official Report, 16/3/95; col. 979.]
It is possible to take proper and appropriate stock of precisely what will happen under supervised discharge if these new powers include referral to the Mental Health Act Commission. The reports will form a much more authoritative basis for considering both of the issues we have discussed about the relative merits of guardianship and supervised discharge orders, and many other forms of community care.
Of course, the Mental Health Act Commission is subject to the statutory requirement to report every two years through the Department of Health to Parliament. I believe that requirement to be important if in future we are to consider, as Ministers have suggested we may have the opportunity to do, a thorough revision of the mental health Acts as they now stand. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise because of the references that have been made to what appears to be a superior system in Scotland proposed in Part II of the Bill. I only wish that those in Scotland thought so too. As I said at Second Reading, the great concern in Scotland is mainly about changing the leave of absence arrangements. They are separate and different in Scotland.
I should point out that the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission was in existence for many years before the body for England and Wales. I cannot help but be
140
gratified by what has been said so far during the debate, having presided over the National Health Service as Secretary of State in Scotland for four years, although that was some time ago. When the Bill for England and Wales, which became the 1983 Act, passed through this House, some doubts were expressed as to whether the Mental Health Act Commission was necessary, whether it would do any good and so on. It was I who spoke up and said that there had been one in Scotland for several years, and I commended it. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has said, I believe it can be said that since 1983 the commission in England and Wales has served the purposes for which it was established. Therefore, I shall listen with particular interest to what the Minister says in reply.
Baroness Cumberlege: I concede my noble friend's tribute to the Scottish system and am grateful to him for the part that he has played in it.
This amendment seeks to add the Mental Health Act Commission to the list of persons the RMO must consult. The commission plays a valuable role in its visits to detained patients. It fulfils admirably the Secretary of State's functions under Section 120 to keep under review the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties relating to the detention of patients, or to patients liable to detention.
The commission's remit is limited to detained patients and does not extend to those receiving care in the community. Therefore, it also rules out guardianship orders. We believe this to be right, given the need to make the best use of finite resources. At the moment, when a supervision application is made the patient will be detained in hospital and the commission will be able to review the way in which the procedures operate. But there is no obligation under the Act as it stands to consult the commission, for example before a patient is detained or before detention is renewed. It would be inconsistent to require this when supervised discharge was being considered.
In the light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington I understand precisely what the Minister says about how this amendment will obviously extend the role of the Mental Health Act Commission, but that is precisely what it is intended to do. Perhaps the Minister can help me a little further on how the Department of Health, and indeed those bodies who will be responsible for patients under supervised discharge orders, expect to be able to evaluate appropriately this new form of care if there is no form of central register, or no way of reporting to a body that can monitor and evaluate this type of care at any future stage.
Baroness Cumberlege: Local mental health registers are being established. I believe that it would be up to the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Health Service Executive to monitor very carefully how effective those registers were.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Obviously, what she says is helpful. I hope that we can return to this at a later stage.

141
I will read very carefully what she has had to say. However, given the context of the discussion at Second Reading about the possible need to revise the whole of the mental health legislation, we probably need something more systematic and nationwide in evaluating this new policy if we are to make approaches of this kind to the old Act. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 32, after ("supervisor,") insert ("who shall be a Community psychiatric nurse,").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 29 is designed to make specific on the face of the Bill who shall be the supervisor of those subject to supervised discharge orders. We have been told that the supervisor will be the named person who will carry the responsibility for ensuring that the patient receives aftercare services in the community. The named person will, if necessary, make the decision to convey the patient to the place where he resides, is being trained or is receiving treatment. Ultimately, it may be the named person who recommends that the supervised discharge order is revised or lifted. Obviously, this will be an extremely responsible and—one may almost think—exposed position. As I said at Second Reading, my fear, and that of several people to whom I have spoken who will be involved in both recruiting and managing people in the community who are subject to supervised discharge orders, is that if the responsibilities that the supervisor is supposed to have and the lines of management and accountability are not absolutely precise, it may be very difficult to persuade colleagues to take on these roles, particularly in view of the harsh spotlight of unpleasant publicity that can fall on named people in these local positions if something goes wrong.
On Second Reading I asked who would be the supervisor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said:
"The supervisor may well be a social worker. But we think it more likely in fact that he or she will be a community mental health nurse. Most key workers in the care programme approach are such nurses".—[Official Report, 16/3/95; col. 977.]
That would be also be consistent with the Bill being regarded primarily as the health authority measure. Given that, it is surely important, so that the lines of responsibility and management accountability are understood clearly and agreed, that the Bill should specify who will hold that crucial post.
Whether they are named specifically on the face of the Bill, community psychiatric nurses will—if they are asked to take on this new role—carry a new and heavy burden. If the amendment is not accepted, I hope that the Government will acknowledge that the codes of practice will need to identify maximum case loads and the need for particular training in those new
142
responsibilities which will almost certainly, as I say, fall upon the community psychiatric nurses who are already severely burdened and under strain. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am very much in sympathy with the objectives of the amendment, but I noticed that the noble Baroness said at the end that community psychiatric nurses are over strained and over-worked. There is a question then of the viability of the amendment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that in London the average reported case load of community psychiatric nurses is 37, and the range in that is 17 to 62. Do we need more community psychiatric nurses before the amendment is viable? I should be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Baroness on that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Earl. The point that he makes is an extremely good one. I hope that if this person is identified clearly and specifically, as the amendment suggests, the pressure to provide such people with adequate resources and to recruit more CPNs, and to see that they are trained appropriately to take on these additional tasks, will become irresistible.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: All professional members of a patient's care team have a degree of expertise and knowledge of the patient which will make their contribution essential to the patient's support and well-being in the community. In practice, the supervisor, for the purposes of supervised aftercare, will be the key worker identified under the care programme approach. That is at the centre of our policy on the care for mentally ill people in the community, which will apply equally to patients covered by the new provisions.
Most key workers are indeed community psychiatric nurses, who have particular skills and clinical background to enable them to fulfil that role effectively. But that is not always the case and there is no reason why other members of the care team—say the doctor or social worker—should not fulfil that role when it is in the patient's best interests and is more practical. The same flexibility is needed in nominating the supervisor under our new provisions. That should be the professional who is best suited, to the satisfaction of all concerned, with providing the aftercare health services needed, to undertaking the role.
Narrowing that to a single discipline is an unnecessary constraint. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I accept what the noble Baroness said, but on the other hand if the assignment of authority—if one can call it that—is not made specific and clear, and, as she said, drawn rather narrowly, the opportunities for confusion and the breakdown of relationships, which has been demonstrated so clearly in so many of the reports which have been referred to in earlier amendments this afternoon, will persist.
If the Government feel that the most appropriate person is the community psychiatric nurse, and if the distinction, as we have heard it argued this afternoon, between the supervised discharge order and, for example, guardianship is that that is a health authority

143
responsibility, why is it not appropriate to name the community psychiatric nurse as the appropriate person? As I said in response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I hope that that person will be supported adequately.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It will not always be the community psychiatric nurse, sometimes it will be the social worker. We are only codifying what already exists. As the noble Baroness may be aware, we have had a huge increase in the number of CPNs, but we feel that we need the same flexibility to make the care package work successfully. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. In a sense it comes back to the nub of the debate we had this afternoon about what it is that distinguishes the supervised discharge order from other forms of supervision in the community. Again, I refer to guardianship. I shall read what the noble Baroness had to say and may return to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): Before I call Amendment No. 32, I must point out that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 33.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("except where the patient otherwise requests").
The noble Earl said: All my amendments are grouped together because they all cover the same subject. One of the tragedies of persons suffering from mental disorder is that because they cease to think logically they cease to trust those nearest and dearest to them. That results in those nearest and dearest being unable to help because they are not trusted. The "nearest and dearest" need not necessarily be a relative. Two or three people may live together and be very close, but not necessarily be related. That is something that should be borne in mind.
Many persons who are seriously mentally impaired may appear to be perfectly normal, and sometimes quite witty. It is only after a period of up to two hours that strangers will become aware of how mentally impaired he or she is, because by that time mentally impaired persons will start to repeat themselves.
Of the four psychiatrists I have met, dealing mainly with my wife, only one of them quickly and clearly diagnosed how seriously mentally ill was my wife. He was the oldest, and the only one who asked the right questions. For the rest of what I shall say, I shall refer to the mentally impaired person as the "patient". The RMO referred to in the Bill should be not less than 45 years old, because persons under that age have not seen enough of life to know the right questions to ask the patient.
My wife was convinced that I needed a psychiatrist much more than she did. That illustrates how difficult it is for the nearest and dearest to be able to seek and
144
obtain help. Regrettably she did not trust her daughter, either. The words I propose to leave out of the Bill are designed to remove from the patient the choice of whether the next of kin, or, as I have said, the nearest and dearest, are informed, because in almost every case that I have known such mentally impaired patients, because they do not think logically, always refuse to have their next of kin informed.
I have shown a different side to that described by my noble friend Lord Mottistone in speaking to Amendment No. 18 and others in that group. I ask that, where the next of kin is involved, he or she must be informed. After all, if the patient is cured the next of kin must help that patient to rehabilitate. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on the courage and clarity with which he spoke about what must be a most painful experience, even remembered at a long distance of time. I understand the situation that he described. He illustrated that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, perhaps exaggerated the position in describing as romantic the review of the relationship with the family as given by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
There are many people who are homeless, rootless and without contacts, as the noble Baroness described. However, there are also others whose families are deeply anxious. It does not necessarily follow that what the noble Earl has recommended is the solution. Such distrust of the people who care for the person most is a characteristic symptom, and therefore it is part of the problem. Indeed, it is almost at the heart of the problem.
However, I am not convinced that because it is at the heart of the problem one can deal with it by pretending that it is not there. One must recognise its existence and one must bring the treatment to the patient in a form that the patient can accept. It is a case of, "You can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink". I express my greatest sympathy with the noble Earl, but I am not certain that the amendment solves his problem.
Baroness Cumberlege: I too greatly respect the experience and knowledge that my noble friend has of the subject. However, as he will be aware, our proposals allow that a patient's nearest relative, as defined under the Mental Health Acts, should be informed of every significant development connected with his or her aftercare under supervision—unless the patient requests otherwise. If the nearest relative is, or is to be, the patient's informal carer in the community, he or she will be consulted and kept informed throughout the process in any case.
My noble friend's amendment will allow the patient's nearest relative to be informed of what is happening to the patient, and possibly of the classification of his mental disorder, regardless of the patient's own wishes and the nature of the relationship between the two. They may have become distanced in any number of ways and, in rare cases, may well be on terms under which it would be entirely reasonable for the patient not to wish further contact or knowledge.

145
There is an underlying confidentiality issue here. It is perfectly reasonable to consult and inform all those who are to play a part in the aftercare arrangements (which could not be set up without the patient's compliance from the outset) but not to inform automatically someone who fits the technical definition of nearest relative unless he is one of these or unless the patient has no objection. In many cases the nearest relative will be the patient's carer and consulted accordingly. If this is not the case the patient should be allowed to ask for confidentiality.
I have agreed to consider the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which go some way towards these amendments, but I do not believe we can override the patient's wishes completely. I therefore suggest to my noble friend Lord Balfour that he does not press these amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: I had no intention of pressing the amendments. I merely wished to bring forward the side of the problem that I and so many of my friends have experienced. I wish to make one further comment and I do not expect my noble friend to reply at this stage.
In the case of my wife and in that of others, the real problem was that she was drinking—only wine but quite a lot. As far as the doctors were concerned, she was under the influence of drugs and therefore they did not want to know. I regret to say that I had to call in the doctors at the end of the day and say, "Enough is enough. Take her away". That is exactly what happened.
It is a matter of the nearest and dearest being able in some way or another to obtain help from social workers, doctors or whoever. What I have described is not uncommon. If there is a way in which people in that unfortunate position can seek and obtain help I should be pleased to help them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 16, at end insert ("uncle, aunt, or grandparents").
The noble Earl said: I hasten to assure the Committee that the amendment does nothing to increase or to diminish the powers of the next relative. I am aware that that is a controversial area of the Bill but the amendment does not enter into it. It deals merely with who shall be classified as next relatives and makes two additions; that is, uncle and aunt or grandparents.
Often those people are personally involved. In a sad number of cases it happens that where a person suffers from severe mental illness, either his or her parents suffer from such mental illness too—living with such illness is in itself a severe strain—or for one of many possible reasons the parent is absent. In such situations either the grandparents or an aunt or uncle tend almost instinctively to take on the responsibility. Therefore, if we are making a list of closely involved relatives, I do not immediately see any logical reason for leaving them out.
Perhaps I may add a light footnote. When we were putting the amendment together in the Whips' Office, our assistant, who was writing it, only just managed to do so because his infant niece, who was sitting on his knee, nearly got away with the pen. That illustrates why I believe the amendment is sensible.
Lord Mottistone: I was most intrigued by the amendment because I thought that the noble Earl was merely adding to the list the people who appear in Section 26 of the 1983 Act. Indeed, he has done so, but perhaps we may compare Section 26 with subsection (10), which the noble Earl is amending. Subsection (10) contains a list of in-laws who do not appear in Section 26, and it is strange that there is such a discrepancy between the two provisions. It would be nice to know why there is such a discrepancy and why all those in-laws have crept in.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may ask about a slightly different category of carer and next-of-kin. I refer to people who, in the case of single parents who are mentally ill, are family members caring for the children. They have a particular knowledge, concern and interest and need to be consulted. There may exist a degree of mistrust of other members of the family, as referred to with such depth of knowledge by many Members of the Committee, and in such circumstances a specific problem can be created with regard to the role, relationship and difficulties facing someone who cares for the children.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. When I first looked at the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I thought that it referred back directly to the 1983 Act. But, indeed, Section 26 is slightly broader and different.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, why he did not include a person other than a relative with whom the patient normally resides. Such a person is referred to in Section 26. I believe that the colloquial expression for such a person would be "the partner". If the amendment intends to extend the category of those people with whom the patient has a close relationship, then the partner—I hesitate to use the words "significant other"—is a relevant person to be included.
On an earlier amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I asked whether the patient is to be consulted about who he or she regards as a close relative, and I make that point again in relation to this amendment.
Earl Russell: I can only reply to the noble Baroness with the classic words of Chief Justice Bereford when quizzed by counsel about the meaning of a statute:
"He that drew the statute meant it to be in the statute and only left it out through inadvertence. It shall therefore be construed to be in the statute".
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I cannot say too much about the laws, in-laws and so on. We are talking here about Section 12(5) of the Mental Health Act and not Section 26. This is merely about those relatives who can make recommendations under Section 10.

147
Those who cannot make a medical recommendation for the purposes of an application for the admission of a patient come under Section 12(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983. That does not preclude the uncle, aunt or grandparent. To do so in this Bill would be inconsistent with the existing provisions of the 1983 Act. The amendment raises an interesting point, but we believe that it needs to be considered in a broader context. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should not for a moment contemplate pressing the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and I shall read it with care. I hope that the noble Baroness has noticed that there is a feeling that it may be worth looking again at the drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) The responsible after-care bodies shall not make such requirements unless they have first heard and considered the views of the patient.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is clear. Its purpose is to ensure that the patient is consulted about the requirement which the so-called aftercare bodies may impose. It would add the words at the end of Section 25D(2) on page 6 of the Bill which states:
"In this Act 'the responsible after-care bodies', in relation to a patient, means the bodies which have (or will have) the duty under section 117 below to provide after-care services for the patient".
Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that:
"It shall be the duty of the District Health Authority and of the local social services authority to provide, in co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies after-care services".
Therefore, we now have the health authority, the local social services authority and the relevant voluntary agencies all involved. The point is that the power of those aftercare bodies to impose requirements on the patient is wide and unprecedented. It would be contrary to the principles of natural justice to allow those public bodies to make decisions affecting the liberty of individuals without them having a full and proper hearing.
I believe that I am right in saying that under the Bill the only right of the patient to object is provided in Clause 1(8) (c), where the patient has the right to object about the information being given to the nearest relative.
In Scotland, there is a judicial process, precedents, case law and the opportunity for advocacy and representation. That is not present in England and Wales. For those reasons, we feel that, if there are to be those wide-ranging powers affecting the liberty of individuals, they should have a full and proper hearing and have the right to be heard and their views considered. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: The requirements, if any, to be placed on the patient will have been considered by the care team, discussed with the patient and attached to
148
the application before it is submitted to the health authority. A requirement that the patient should have another hearing at this level before the requirements can be imposed is unnecessary and unworkable. Professionals acting on behalf of the responsible bodies will already have been involved in setting up the aftercare before the application and its associated requirements are accepted. Therefore, we feel that we cannot agree to the amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall read what the noble Baroness said, which was brief, to see whether I am convinced by the argument. I am not sure that I am convinced, because there arises again the point about the rights of a patient, although I appreciate that the patient has rights, once the package has been designed with regard to how it will work. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("a") and insert ("an agreed").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38. These two amendments are extremely simple. They refer simply to the consensual nature which, as we have mentioned several times this afternoon, is at the base of the supervised discharge orders, in terms of agreeing where the patient should live once he is discharged into the community.
The question of the home, hostel or flat where the patient will reside once he is discharged from hospital will be absolutely crucial to his well-being. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate that that should be agreed with the patient and, as my noble friend Lord Longford suggests in his amendment, agreed in advance with the patient. My amendment is slightly less specific.
Obviously the House, home or hostel where the patient resides will be crucial to his well-being. It seems that it would be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill the word "agreed" or the words "agreed in advance" with the patient in order to emphasise yet again the co-operative and consensual nature of the arrangements which will be put in place under the care package. I beg to move.
The Earl of Longford: My amendment is in accordance with the spirit of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Jay. Once again, my amendment is based on a great deal of experience of the Matthew Trust. It embodies a very simple proposition that the arrangements, which may be extremely difficult and painful, should be carried out as far as possible in harmony with the patient.
Baroness Cumberlege: We are aware of your Lordships' concerns for the rights of patients and in particular the proud record of the noble Earl in safeguarding their interests. I can understand the wish to keep as unrestrictive and reasonable as possible the requirements which could be made for ensuring that patients receive the support that they need in the community. But I cannot agree to what is suggested.

149
The Bill allows those responsible for a patient's aftercare under supervision to require him, if they think it is justified, to attend for treatment, rehabilitation or related purposes at specified times and places. Another requirement is that the patient should live at a specified address. To require the patient to agree beforehand would make the requirements unworkable. If the patient were to withdraw his agreement, the provisions would fall entirely and become meaningless. As presently drafted, if he fails to attend when specified, he has failed to comply with the terms of his discharge and a review of his case might ensue. That reflects the overall purpose of the Bill and I therefore ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am disappointed by that reply. It seems to me that there is a very clear difference between specifying where a patient should attend for training or treatment, which will obviously be an identifiable clinic, rehabilitation centre of whatever it may be, and specifying, without the agreement of the patient, where he should live. Obviously there will be requirements for the person to attend a centre for the other services that are specified in the section. However, to insist that he should have no say in the place where he lives seems to me to be entirely different. It is simply a rather authoritarian attitude which is unfortunate in the context of what the Minister often described during the earlier discussions on the Bill as being a consensual relationship if it is to be successful.
The Earl of Longford: I share the disappointment and echo the sentiments just expressed by my noble leader.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I can do no more than underline what my noble friend Lord Longford has just said. I shall take away and consider what the Minister said, but I suspect that we may need to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) Where the responsible after-care bodies decide to impose requirements on the patient, they shall—

(a) inform the patient, in writing, of the requirements, if any, they have decided to impose; and

(b) explain, orally and in writing, the legal effect of imposing the requirements.").

The noble Lord said: If there is a decision to impose certain requirements, the purpose of the above amendment is to include in the Bill an obligation on the responsible aftercare bodies to inform the patient in writing of such requirements and explain to him,
"orally and in writing, the legal effect of imposing the requirements".
The proposed wording really looks back to Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 which were dealt with earlier and which the Minister said she was minded to take away, consider and, perhaps, return with the Government's own
150
amendment. Those amendments dealt with the position of the health authority and sought to ensure that it should,
"inform the patient, both orally and in writing, of his right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and to be legally represented at the Tribunal hearing".
If there is a decision to "impose requirements" under Section 25D(3), there is a feeling that the same rights should apply; in other words, that the patient should be informed in writing and have explained both orally and in writing the legal effects of the imposition of those requirements.
As the Bill is drafted, there is no requirement to inform the patient of the requirements that the aftercare bodies decide to impose. The amendment is designed to ensure that the patient is both told of the requirements and given a legal explanation of their effect. As the Government were sympathetic to the earlier amendments, surely they can agree that there should be a duty to inform and explain the requirements placed on a patient by the aftercare bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: We agree with the general spirit of the amendment, but do not think that the issue it raises is one that needs to be spelt out in the Bill. If any requirements are to be placed on the patient—as to residence, or attendance at specified times and places for treatment, occupation and so forth—then, before they are placed on him, the hospital RMO will have consulted the patient and in the process explained to him what the requirements will mean. A statement about that must be submitted with the application to the health authority.
If the requirements are to be subsequently modified by the responsible aftercare bodies, then the Bill already specifies that further consultation must take place with the patient before the requirements are changed—Section 25D(6). The patient is informed after they are changed under Section 25D(7). The patient will be left in no doubt both as to the requirements and what they mean. The team responsible for the patient's care will want to ensure that he keeps to the requirements and no doubt the team will consider whether they should be put down in writing. But we do not think that that is something that needs to be spelt out on the face of the Bill. For those reasons, we feel that the amendment proposed is unnecessary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should like to press the Minister to explain why it is logical to say, if I understood her correctly, that there should be notification in writing if there is a change of requirements but no notification in writing of the original requirements. The reason that I raise the point is that one of the issues which runs through the Bill is that of people's right to appeal in the event of a breakdown in arrangements whereby people do not feel satisfied that the patient is safe for himself or, indeed, for others. Surely the process of appeal is made that much easier if it is demonstrable that, in all cases, the

151
patient was made fully aware at the beginning of the requirements in writing so that no difficulty or argument could arise.
Baroness Cumberlege: An explanation will be in the care plan which, of course, is a written document and is attached to the application for supervised discharge.
Lord Carter: When the Minister began her response, I thought that I was going to be as fortunate with this amendment as I was with the previous two that I mentioned. The Government agree with the general spirit of the amendment; in other words, they feel it is important. I accept that there is an emphasis upon more consultation. However, as I understand it, the patient does not have any right to object. He can listen and be consulted but, at the end of the day, such requirements can be imposed. For that reason, I believe that there should be an obligation to explain, inform and, above all, ensure that the patient is fully aware of the implications of all that is to be imposed on him. I shall read the Minister's response and take further advice. I believe that we may wish to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): Before I call Amendment No. 41, I must point out that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 42.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, leave out lines 39 to 43.
The noble Baroness said: At this stage, the above is a probing amendment. Therefore, I imagine that we will also be considering Amendment No. 42. It is a probing amendment designed to question both the legality and the effectiveness of the power to take and convey a patient subject to a supervised discharge order as proposed in the Bill.
I am advised by the Law Society that the power to take and convey may breach Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is connected with the liberty and security of the person, and that it may also breach Article 8, which is concerned with respect for private and family life. There is also concern that, while the Bill gives wide-ranging powers to the supervisor to take and convey a patient, there are no specific authorisations such as exist in Sections 6 and 137 of the Mental Health Act 1983 concerning removal to hospital or a place of safety. The powers in the Mental Health Act include all the powers of a police officer taking someone into custody. But those powers are not specifically included in the Bill. There seems to be potential for serious legal challenge.
However, I must tell Members of the Committee that other lawyers—not members of the Mental Health and Disability Committee of the Law Society—have advised me that it is unlikely that successful proceedings could be taken on the basis of the European convention. But if it is possible that lawyers will argue in the future and also possible that the Government could be seriously embarrassed by a negative ruling, I think it is
152
appropriate at this stage for the Minister to be more precise about the belief that the powers in Section 25D(4) are legally watertight.
Apart from the legal issues, my main concerns regarding the power to take and convey are about its effectiveness as it is proposed. For example, the Mental After Care Association has written to me saying:
"As this significant new power lies at the heart of the Bill, we are keen to learn [what Ministers] hope to achieve by this measure. How, in practice, will this new power ensure that patients comply with aftercare arrangements? If a patient fails to arrive at a day-centre or training course, will the Community Psychiatric Nurse be expected to convey the individual there? Or will the power be delegated to another agency, for example the police? Whatever the case, is the attendance at a place of 'occupation, education or training' considered so important as to necessitate [these] far-reaching legal powers?"
The Mental After Care Association, and other bodies working with the mentally ill in the community, suspect that the true force of the provision lies in the power to convey a patient to a place of treatment. But, of course, there is no power compulsorily to treat a patient once he is conveyed. The Royal College of Psychiatrists questions the purpose of the power to convey reluctant patients when there is no power to treat. It appears to that body that the expectation of the Government is that such coercion will induce some patients subject to this order to have their treatment, which might include medication. However, if patients refuse any item of treatment, there is no provision in the Bill as presently drafted either to treat them in the community or recall them to hospital.
The British Medical Association has also described the Bill as limited in this respect because doctors cannot compulsorily treat. The BMA would like to see the ultimate ability to treat a patient compulsorily in extreme circumstances. In other words, the provision as drafted at the moment—to take and convey—seems to be a classic case of taking a horse to water but not being able to make it drink.
The Committee will remember that the Royal College of Psychiatrists earlier suggested a community treatment order which included of course compulsory treatment. That was rejected both by the Department of Health and the Health Select Committee in another place. But, as the provision is drafted at the moment, it seems to satisfy no one. The clinicians who want the power compulsorily to treat patients in the community do not have that power and those concerned primarily with the consensual nature of care under a supervised discharge order are dissatisfied because they feel the power to convey is on its own a coercive threat to the therapeutic alliance between patient and professionals. I hope the Government will consider carefully the drafting of new Section 25D(4) so that it meets one or other of these concerns and does not—as it does at the moment—fall precisely between the various stools of concern: the concerns of the clinicians and the concerns of those primarily involved with the civil rights of patients. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: As the Committee is aware, I am advised by people who are involved in this matter. I

153
myself questioned this particular part of the Bill. I am told that our advisers are strongly in favour of retaining new Section 25D(4) as it now stands. That is the subsection which Amendment No. 41 seeks to remove. One must remember that the subsection does not refer to treatment only but also to where the person lives, or resides, as is stated in the provision. That does not necessarily mean the patient will also receive treatment at the same time. Therefore the issue as to whether the treatment is not compulsory does not really enter under those circumstances. The important matter is that the people who know about these issues have all said they think the measure should stay in the Bill. That includes someone who has schizophrenia. He believed equally strongly that the measure should be retained in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not lightly give it away.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Jay. There appears to be a conflict between the assessment that the patient will be capable of conforming to, agreeing to, consenting to, and participating in a package of measures designed to enable him or her to live in the community, and the concept of people being forcibly taken—conveyed, by implication, against their will—to a place where, for example, they will receive education. There does not seem to be a logic behind that sort of concept. On the other hand there is a situation where, for the sake of the safety of the patient or other people, the need to convey the patient to a place for diagnosis as a matter of urgency and emergency would appear to be logical. I hope I may press the Minister on this point. I believe that would occur in extreme circumstances when the whole pattern of care was in danger of breaking down and there was genuine anxiety. The idea of conveying against someone's will, at this particular stage, as envisaged in this part of the Bill, would appear not to be in conflict with the whole spirit of the measure.
Earl Russell: These are heartbreakingly difficult areas. I have already argued that I do not think one can really apply libertarian arguments in the area of mental illness in quite the way one would in some others. The essence of those libertarian arguments is freedom of choice and the use of the will. It is of the essence of mental illness that one's control over the operation of one's will is, to put it no higher, extremely imperfect. Therefore it is difficult to construct the classic libertarian argument of free choice in favour of mental patients. I think one might say what Locke said about the rights of children—that they are not born in this state of equality though they are born to it. As one considers in libertarian arguments about children not what the child wants but what is in the child's interest, so I think one has to ask the same question in areas of mental illness. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I have known cases where the use of a power to convey was capable of bringing a patient back to what he told us afterwards he really wanted. That must command attention though it is not conclusive.
On the point about the European convention, the briefing I have had is that this is a grey area. I understand that the Government have already taken
154
advice on this subject. I am prepared on this to give the Government the benefit of the doubt provided that the Government will admit that a doubt genuinely exists. I am sympathetic to the Bill as it is; I am also sympathetic to the arguments in favour of the amendment. I do not think we shall ever get it right but I do not think we shall get much nearer than the Bill has at present.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for supporting this proposal, although I understand the caveat that he has introduced. I am also, of course, grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Perhaps I could just take Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights first. We have taken legal advice and we are advised that there is no conflict between the provisions of the Bill and the obligations under the European convention. Although we envisage the comparatively rare use of the power to convey a patient, we do see it as an important feature of the new provisions. It will enable a supervisor, or any person authorised by the supervisor, to take the patient to the place where he or she is required, under the terms of the supervision arrangements, to live or attend for treatment or rehabilitation.
While it is true that ultimately supervision will succeed only with the patient's participation, the power to convey will give useful hacking to the care team, for example where there is a temporary reluctance to co-operate. We have followed the form of the existing Mental Health Act power for conveying a patient to hospital following an application for detention. I do not believe that this power will he misused because to do so would be so obviously self-defeating.
With regard to Amendment No. 42, we believe that this amendment—I see the noble Baroness rise. I am sorry; I thought she was taking them together.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sorry. I think the Minister misunderstood me. I only replied to the Chairman who said that, if Amendment No. 40 was accepted, it would be inappropriate to call Amendment No. 42. I said I thought that Amendment No. 40 would not be accepted, as it has proved not to be.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My advice also is that the legal position on the European convention is still a grey area. I have heard what the Minister said about Article 5. I can only hope that the Government will not find themselves in embarrassing situations with patients bringing successful cases on the basis of that convention, because I still do not think we have absolutely hard and fast assurances that that will not be possible.
My concern with this provision in the Bill is—unlike the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which is of a philosophical, libertarian nature—a practical one. I am concerned about whether or not it will be effective. What happens if a patient is conveyed to a place where he or she is required,
"to reside or to attend for the purpose of medical treatment. occupation, education or training"
and he or she simply walks out again? It seems to me that this provision sounds as if it gives great powers and will persuade people to comply with care programmes with which they may not he entirely in agreement, but

155
it has no teeth. It has no teeth and the Government in a sense have not been prepared to go as far as some of the medical advisers have suggested. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, although I obviously respect the authority of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, I hope that he will equally respect the authority of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Medical Association in this field.
I do not argue for a medical solution to the problem. I simply inquire whether the power to convey, as drafted, will be a remotely effective tool in the armoury of the supervisor in the community, who will obviously have a very difficult task in any case. As I said, this is a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 40, leave out (", or by any person authorised by,").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment develops the discussion about who should have the authority to take and convey the patient if that duty is required. The amendment would delete the words:
"or by any person authorised by",
the supervisor. The relationship which it is hoped will be built up between the person who is the subject of the supervision order and the supervisor is bound to be undermined if, in the extreme circumstances which we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, the person with responsibility devolves that responsibility to somebody else.
The other reason for pursuing the amendment is that it is not clear whether there will be the same powers under this Bill as exist under the Mental Health Act 1983, which enables the police to be brought in in such a situation. If it is the case that the police may be "any person authorised by" the supervisor then that should he stated. However, that will seriously undermine the consensual and co-operative nature of the agreement which, as we have said repeatedly, is supposed to be the basis of a supervised discharge order.
It may be that the person authorised by the supervisor is somebody who has physical strength, for example. It has been suggested to me that a 5 ft. psychiatric nurse may have to deal with a large, muscular 6ft. 4 ins. patient and may need somebody else to help if there is any question of physical force being involved in conveying the patient to the place where he resides or needs to undergo medical treatment. In that case there might he a practical argument for the provision.
As drafted, the provision is unclear. It suggests that the position could be the same as under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the police might be involved. That would he very unfortunate. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: We believe that the amendment would be impractical. The supervisor may not be personally on hand at a time of emergency, nor in a position for other reasons to take a patient to where
156
he or she should be. Authorising another person to fulfil that function would be a reasonable response in those circumstances. We do not accept the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That reply was brief and to the point. However, the Minister did not respond to my anxieties about the role of the police as authorised under the 1983 Act. Can she help the Committee on that point?
Baroness Cumberlege: Clearly this power to convey would be used only in times of emergency. In the discussion earlier this afternoon the noble Baroness said that she felt that guardianship was the way to go. The criticism that we have received of guardianship is precisely that it does not have this type of provision. When a patient chooses not to comply there is no means whereby someone who is responsible for the patient's care can ensure that the patient is conveyed to a place where it is felt that the treatment given to that patient would be beneficial. That is exactly the same argument as put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the previous amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In relation to the previous amendment I did not say that I thought that guardianship was the way to go. I asked the Minister whether the guardianship supervision order, as it is described and used, is not an exact parallel of the new supervised discharge order. The Minister replied that, because the guardianship order was conducted largely as a social services measure, it was different from the supervised discharge order, which is a health authority measure. We did not at any stage discuss the question of whether guardianship, because it does not involve the question of taking and conveying, is relevant to this particular amendment. I drew the Committee's attention to the fact that the Law Commission had suggested that guardianship could be extended to include this power in the revision of the Mental Health Act.
I am sorry to persist, but I do not believe that the Minister answered the question about the precise force of the take and convey provision and whether the same strenuous types of authority could be invoked as are invoked under the Mental Health Act 1983. That is not specified on the face of the Bill. We may have to return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I point out that there are two words missing from the last line of Amendment No. 43. The words "the duty" should be inserted between "discharge" and "under".
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that there are sufficient hospital places to allow the responsible after-care bodies to discharge the duty under subsection (4) (b) above.").
The noble Earl said: I remember the noble Baroness, when she was answering Questions from the Dispatch Box, once being asked whether the Treasury was involved in the matter. The noble Baroness replied that in her short time in office she had yet to find any matter in which the Treasury had not been involved. That answer drew a great deal of approval from long-standing Members of this Chamber. It is relevant to this amendment.
On the whole, the provisions of the Bill should work rather well, but the question is whether there are the resources for them to be made effective. It is a rule among historians in construing statutes that, if one finds the same provision repeated over and over again in a succession of statutes, one concludes that it was not effective the first time. That rule is also relevant to the amendment.
The amendment deals with the situation in which those responsible for a patient's aftercare recommend that the patient be committed to hospital. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that sufficient hospital beds are available. I do not believe that that is the case at present. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that in London there is 130 per cent. bed occupancy. That rather Irish statement does not mean that there is a system of box and cox. It means that large numbers of patients who ought to be in hospital are either at home, in prison, in inappropriate beds elsewhere or have been prematurely discharged.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists argues—and the point is important to the Government's response—that the present methods of collecting official data make it impossible to check how acute the shortage is. It has therefore undertaken a survey of its own from which it established that 204 patients were lodged elsewhere, 53 were in non-admissions psychiatric beds, five were in medical wards, 42 were in other NHS hospitals, 60 were in private psychiatric hospitals, 30 were at home or in the community and 14 were in prisons or in police cells.
Prisons and, even more, police cells are not appropriate places for treating mental illness. I understand that the prison authorities and the police agree. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, giving a seminar paper at Liverpool as recently as last Friday, quoted a figure given by Mr. Brendan O'Friel of 2,000 mental health sufferers in prison who should not be there. That is grossly ineffective for the treatment of mental illness, it may be cruel to the patients concerned, it is extremely expensive of public funds and it forces the prison staff to try to develop skills in which they are probably not trained and which perhaps they do not possess. In effect, it is a
158
case of exporting problems into another Ministry. I should be tempted to use my regular phrase for such situations, "only connect", save that the title of the novel in which that appears might, in the context, be misinterpreted. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Some years ago I visited Attica Prison, a high security prison in upper New York state. I was told by the director of the New York State Prison Department that there had been a long-running dispute between his department and the mental health authorities of the state of New York. Eventually, the situation became so serious that the governor of the state had to bring in an arbitrator to deal with the dispute. It concerned what happened with mentally ill inmates who should clearly have been transferred to a mental hospital.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would deal specifically with the point. It raises substantial matters of public policy. As she is aware, arguments have been going on between the Home Office and the Department of Health, to my mind for at least 15 years, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, could arguably testify that they went on even longer than that. Grave disquiet has been expressed about the number of people who are mentally ill and who are held in prisons because there are not adequate places for them in mental hospitals.
My noble friend referred to the Lord Chief Justice quoting Mr. Brendan O'Friel, chairman of the Prison Governors' Association. We can all speculate as to how many people in prison suffer from mental illness. The figure may be 2,000; it may be less, it may be more. Nevertheless, there is a real issue of public policy here and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could express her views on the matter. It is causing serious disquiet in the Prison Service and among many judges who have expressed their disquiet on the Bench. We wait with interest to hear what the noble Baroness says.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: There has been some talk today about the patient being ill at the time when the supervision application is made. I put it that the patient will have been stabilised prior to the supervision application. He will appear to be well rather than ill. The problem is that he is liable to become ill again, usually if he stops taking his medication. Indeed, for the power to convey to be imposed on him is a substantial symptom of his deteriorating mental health.
Therefore, I suggest that there is a need for a guarantee that a bed will be available if the patient's mental health deteriorates to the point of requiring readmission. I insist that the provision of a hospital bed must be part of the community care plan. A health authority will need to keep a quota of beds free proportionate to the number of supervision orders operating in its area. The beds must be available when needed, otherwise the idea of aftercare with supervision in the community will become worthless.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the points raised on the amendment. I refer particularly to the experience which some of us have of seeing people whose mental health has deteriorated to the point where

159
they behave in a bizarre way and in the end are drawn to the attention of the police. There is not only a problem in prisons; there is sometimes a problem in police cells which are the only place of safety to which people can be taken in advance of hospital beds being made available. Such people may have committed a crime or appear to be about to commit a crime. It is critically important to ensure that we do not close beds as patients move out as a book balancing exercise, a financial transaction, only to discover that inevitably there will be occasions when, not necessarily for permanent return but for respite care, in the best interests of the patient a hospital bed is the best place.
Baroness Cumberlege: Health authorities are responsible for assessing the needs of their populations for the full range of mental health services and for contracting with NHS trusts and other providers to ensure that sufficient services are available. To make that the subject of a specific statutory provision would, we believe, undermine the essential principle that the details of local arrangements and priorities are a matter for decision at local level.
However, we are aware of the resource situation. Large increases in the number of medium-secure psychiatric hospital places are planned in our current building programme. There will be an increase from 700 in 1992 to nearly 1,200 in 1996, next year. The number of mentally ill people who have transferred from prison to hospital increased from 325 in 1990 to 755 in 1993. I agree with Members of the Committee who have spoken about the need to prevent people from getting into the prison system in the first place. The Committee will be aware of the number of court diversionary schemes which we have also introduced.
Different forms of care can be provided with beds for mentally ill people. When I was chairman of the South West Thames Regional Health Authority, we were responsible for the huge institutions commonly known as the "Epsom Cluster". They were enormous Victorian institutions which used to house 2,000 people. Sometimes I had sleepless nights thinking about their care and the nature of those places. I am pleased that the situation has radically changed and that some have closed.
Members of the Committee may know the work of Virginia Beardshaw who wrote an interesting book, Conscientious Objectors. There is an appendix at the back of the book showing the 22 major inquiries which took place between 1968 and 1981, and the Committee will be horrified by some of the results. One must get into perspective the type of care that has been provided over the years.
As to the long-stay hospital beds, in the past 10 years the number of places in the large hospitals has continued to fall. However, that has been matched by an increasing provision of alternative places in smaller NHS hospitals, local authority places and private and voluntary nursing homes. We welcome the growing number and diversity
160
of places for mentally ill people in the community. In 1988–89 the number of short-stay beds was 22,505; in 1991–92, it was 22,159.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister will give way for a moment. I agree that there are major areas where there has been a transfer of resources into the community. But equally in almost every major town and city individuals are known to fall between the available resources. That is because they are unable to accept the requirements of living in a community setting, which makes more demands on their ability to behave in a socially acceptable way to other residents than they are able to live with. Those difficult cases are known in almost every small town throughout the country. People sleep in doorways, they sleep rough and they are incapable of fitting into the models that we are discussing and which are essential in terms of development.
As regards the amendment, my fear is that we are dealing with the very people for whom there is no alternative if the residential part of their care package breaks down and they become impossible. That is because the demands they will make on the people with whom they share the accommodation are far too great. Therefore, they must have a bed and it must be available for so long as that person needs it.
7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness interrupted and perhaps I could finish what I was about to say. Going back to the long-stay institutions, studies carried out in central London have shown that all those who are roofless and who are homeless are not people who have been discharged from long-stay institutions. But, a great many of them have a mental illness. We accept that. That is why we set up a mental health task force to look at the needs of London in particular. It produced a recent report Priorities for Action, which found that some of the problems could be alleviated by increasing community provision or improved bed management strategies. But the task force also identified a need for more acute beds in a few inner London districts. The district health authorities involved have agreed action plans to bring about the required increase in provision.
So we accept some of the arguments and are taking action on them. But we resist this amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and all those who have spoken on the amendment. It is an important issue. Listening to the noble Baroness about the proposed statutory duty, I was reminded of the comments of local authorities on the subject of Amendment No. 1. There is a resistance to having a statutory duty placed upon them. I can see why. It tends to pass the problem round the circle. But it means of course that the patient gets passed around the circle as well. In the end, the buck has to stop somewhere.
I understand what the noble Baroness said about the responsibility of health authorities. But, in the end, there must be a final duty resting somewhere; or else, as happens with mental illness patients, the patient will be

161
passed repeatedly around the country. If the responsibility does not finally stop with the Secretary of State, I do not see where it would stop.
I listened to what the noble Baroness said about what she called the "Epsom cluster" and understood her remarks. I have visited patients who were in that cluster. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I see them now, sleeping in doorways off the Strand. I work in the Strand. I walk down the Strand late at night quite often and have some idea of what goes on there.
Baroness Cumberlege: Before the noble Earl proceeds, perhaps if he will look at the studies that we have done, he will see that the people in the Strand, who are homeless and who are roofless, are not the people who have come from the long-stay institutions, although they may well have a mental illness.
Earl Russell: I accept that a very large number of them are not from such institutions. I am sure that the noble Baroness has heard me speak about the 16 and 17 year-olds often enough for me not to need to go into that subject again. I am equally sure that many are, including some cases whom I happen to know personally. Those people come from a great many different categories. That, I believe, is one of them. The noble Baroness should also bear in mind what the Royal College of Psychiatrists said; namely, that the monitoring does not have the statistical techniques available to it to be quite so certain about those points.
The Government have suffered many times from the Rayner principle: they only collect the statistics which are necessary to them. They keep finding that the statistics which are necessary are those that they did not foresee would be necessary. So the information is not there.
We have not had an answer on the point of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and mental health sufferers in prison. That is an extremely serious point which needs to be taken into account in any full resolution of the issue. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would perhaps write to both me and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich before we come to that issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 52 not moved.]
Earl Haig Earl Haig moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9. line 6, at end insert:
("Regulation an to transfer of patients
( ).—(I) This section applies where, for good reason, the patient wishes to reside at a place other than that imposed on him under section 25D above.
(2) Where subsection (1) above applies in relation to a patient, the responsible after-care bodies shall consider whether appropriate after-care services will be available in the area in which the patient wishes to reside, being an area not within that of the responsible Health Authority or local social services authority as specified in section 25A")
(3) Where subsection (1) above applies in relation to a patient. the responsible after-care bodies shall consult the persons referred to in subsection (4) below who will be professionally concerned, in the intended area of residence, with the after-care services to be provided for the patient under
162
section 117 below. or shall, if the patient intends to reside in Scotland, make an application to the appropriate sheriff under section 35 below.
(4) The persons referred to in subsection (3) above are—

(a) the responsible medical officer within the area of the Health Authority where the patient intends to reside: and

(b) an approved social worker acting for the local social services authority where the patient intends to reside.

(5) Where a patient is for the time being subject to after-care under supervision of a Health Authority by virtue of an application under section 25A above, that patient may he transferred into the after-care supervision of another Health Authority after such consultation, and in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(6) Where a patient who is subject to after-care under supervision is transferred in pursuance of regulations under subsection (5) above, to after-care under supervision of another Health Authority, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply as if the application were for his reception into the after-care under supervision of that Health Authority and had been accepted at the time when it was originally made.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment concerns patients who, for good reason, wish to move between districts when subject to an aftercare supervision order. The inference of the Bill, as currently drafted, is that a patient subject to an aftercare order might only change his place of residence within the same health authority or local social services authority area. That limitation is most likely to prove a problem in major cities where there can be numerous health trusts and local social services authorities within a comparatively small area. Under the current provisions of the Bill, a patient could only have the requirements imposed upon him amended if he refuses or neglects to receive aftercare services or comply with the requirements of the supervision order.
The only options available to the aftercare bodies then are either to cancel the supervision order or to admit him to hospital. Obviously, neither option is appropriate. There should be greater flexibility within the framework of the Bill. In cases where there are better opportunities for housing, employment, or support from relatives, a move should be countenanced without hindrance from unnecessary red tape.
Perhaps I may make a proviso; namely, that a move should only take place with care and consideration and in the certainty that cases will be delivered into safe medical hands. There is always the danger that a patient can escape between one doctor and another and thus forgo the planned medical programme. It is envisaged that the amendment will allow for such transfers between districts in England and Wales and also between England, Wales and Scotland. This amendment has the support of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I do not wish to interrupt the Committee in any way. I believe that one of the most wonderful services provided by the National Health Service is that a patient can be moved from a hospital in London, say, all the way to a hospital in Scotland under the National Health Service provisions. That is marvellous. It happened in the case of my mother who broke her leg falling downstairs in London and was taken to a hospital at home in Scotland. Under these

163
provisions, if somebody who required mental care wanted to be moved from, say, England to Scotland, I wonder whether he could go with a qualified person accompanying him on that journey.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I too should like to ask the Minister whether this amendment would precisely illustrate the great advantages of involving the Mental Health Act Commission (as I suggested in my earlier amendment)? It would focus attention on how and where patients were transferred and on their supervision arrangements when they left a certain place, so that they could be appropriately reinvigorated when they moved to a new place. It would ensure that responsible authorities—as I know has happened in previous tragic circumstances—did not have to rely exclusively on the version of the patient himself as to what his care involved.
Baroness Cumberlege: Though we understand the reasoning behind the amendment, we believe it to be unnecessary. The Bill already allows for a patient to move to another area and for aftercare under supervision to continue. That is not explicit in the Bill, but works because of the link with Section 117. The Section 117 duty is placed on the health authority and the local social services authority for the area in which the patient is resident. That means that the duty transfers when the patient moves and lasts until the two authorities are satisfied that the person no longer needs the services. There is therefore no need for the amendment, and we would not wish to issue regulations covering transfers.
There is however one issue which we are still considering. That is transfers between England or Wales and Scotland or vice versa. This raises some rather difficult issues of converting a power which is based on an application to a health authority and one firmly rooted in the courts, by an application to the sheriff. We are looking carefully at what might be done to address this and we hope to bring forward our proposals soon.
In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Haig: I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply and look forward to hearing at Report stage how she intends to plan the future. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("After-care: housing
. For the avoidance of doubt, a person to whom a duly is owed under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall he deemed vulnerable as a result of mental illness under section 59(1) (c) of the Housing Act 1985 (Priority need for accommodation)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is entirely clear from its wording. It states:
164
"a person to whom a duty is owed under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be deemed vulnerable as a result of mental illness under section 59(1) (c) of the Housing Act 1985 (Priority need for accommodation)"
It seeks to ensure that a person who is subject to aftercare under supervision and any other person who has been detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 but is discharged, meets one of the qualifications for housing by the local housing authority.
We can all agree that there is a link between homelessness and mental illness in certain circumstances. We are not clear whether that is cause or effect but there is certainly a link. Some research indicates that many people are detained in hospital for longer than necessary because they do not have accommodation. The amendment places a duty on housing authorities, which may or may not be the same as the local social services authority, to provide accommodation for someone who has been detained in hospital.
The Government are slowly and reluctantly accepting the proposition which for most people is common sense; that is, that there is a link between social conditions and health, and stress is certainly a factor in this. Poor housing is related to poor health and mentally ill patients who are prone to stress will be further disadvantaged with poor housing, having to fight for accommodation or will be bed-blocked in hospital because of lack of accommodation.
For those reasons we felt that there should be a duty on the local authority to provide housing in that situation. We discussed earlier the right of the social services authority to refuse to accept a supervision discharge order. We agreed that it was not clear what would happen if the order was refused. It was recognised that housing, or the lack of it, may be a reason for such refusal.
For all those reasons we feel that the patients we are discussing are vulnerable in the true sense of the word and as a result there should be a duty on the housing authority to provide them with housing on their discharge. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that Amendment No. 66 would provide a useful buttress in establishing a successful community supervision order. It would clarify that this group of citizens are vulnerable and entitled to special care by housing authorities.
Baroness Cumberlege: The accommodation available to, or to be provided for, a mentally disordered patient leaving hospital must be a fundamental consideration in planning for his or her welfare and the aftercare services that are to be provided. Providing safe and secure accommodation is an essential part of caring for mentally ill people in the community. The Government are doing all they can to encourage local agencies to work together to provide this. But it must be for local agencies to determine the best use of the housing that is available. I think it would be wrong for the Government to stipulate that all people for whom the health and local authority has a duty under Section 117 to provide services must be treated as vulnerable

165
under the Housing Act. That Act in Section 59(1) (c) says that those with mental illness are to be treated as priority cases. What this amendment seeks to do is to increase the scope of the provision by particular reference to aftercare under supervision.
Patients being discharged from detention or liability to detention will not all be vulnerable and will have differing needs. It must be for local agencies to determine what those needs are. I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I find the response of the Minister astounding. The special meeting held stressed that we are dealing with an exceptionally vulnerable group of people. We are dealing with people to whom the noble Baroness referred in a previous answer as people who may need to be conveyed, against their will, to a place of training, education or residence. It is a group of people whom the Bill as it stands assumes need protecting at all stages.
Sadly, in my view, we are not dealing with an amendment that would make it a requirement that all those in desperate need of housing, for whatever cause, should get it. But the amendment deals with a particularly vulnerable group of people. It does not seem logical for the Minister to say that they are so vulnerable that it is necessary for someone to convey them to their residence to ensure that they are safe, yet it is not equally important to ensure that that residence is there, safe, suitable and provided as a matter of priority.
I was tempted, but it would be unforgiveable so close to the dinner break, to make the comment that some of the Minister's friends appear to be prepared, when it comes to other groups such as single parents, to interfere with local authority priority lists; but it would be inadvisable and unsuitable to raise that matter now.
Lord Carter: My noble friend put the case extremely well. If ever there was a predictable answer from the Minister, we certainly received it. We shall not leave the matter. It is important.
I take the Minister's point about being a little more specific. I should like to think about the matter, perhaps redraft the amendment and make the application rather more specific to define the vulnerability more closely. I take the point made by my noble friend that these are people who, above all, fit the definition of vulnerability. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Absence without leave]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 15, line 43, leave out ("or placed under guardianship by a guardianship order").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is relatively minor and raises no issue of policy. It serves to correct an anomaly in the provisions relating to patients subject to guardianship who go absent without leave.
Clause 2(3) provides for the return of patients who abscond to the Republic of Ireland after having gone absent without leave. As it stands, this applies both to patients subject to hospital orders and those subject to guardianship orders. Under Section 88 of the 1983 Act, however, patients subject to guardianship orders who go absent without leave may only be taken into custody within England and Wales. The effect of Clause 2(3), therefore, would be that patients subject to guardianship orders who went absent without leave could be taken into custody in the Republic of Ireland, but not if they abscond to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
The proposed amendment seeks to put matters on an even footing. It limits the effect of Clause 2(3) to those patients subject to hospital orders. Patients subject to guardianship orders who go absent without leave would remain liable to be taken into custody within England and Wales alone. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Leave of absence from hospital]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 16, line 36, at end insert:
("(1A) In Schedule 1 to that Act (application of provisions to patients subject to hospital and guardianship orders), in Part II (patients subject to special restrictions), in paragraph 3(c) (modifications of section 17(5)), for the word "six" there shall be substituted "twelve.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 69. These amendments introduce a new Section 1A which amends Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. This will have the effect of enabling the responsible medical officer to recall a restricted patient—those who are subject to the Home Secretary's powers defined in Section 41 of the Act—from leave of absence at any time up to 12 months from the first day of his absence on leave. The Home Secretary will still be able to recall the patient at any time.
These are relatively minor amendments which raise no issues of policy. They serve to correct an oversight in the Bill whereby the provisions for leave of absence relating to restricted patients differ from those relating to unrestricted patients.
Clause 3 amends Section 17(5) of the 1983 Act to remove the limit of six months on the period for which leave of absence may be granted to detained patients in England and Wales. This will allow a longer period of rehabilitation—up to a maximum of 12 months—under the care of an RMO before a patient's liability to detention ends.
As it stands, the position of restricted patients is covered separately in paragraph 3(c) of Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. In Schedule 1, however, the time limit of six months after which a patient cannot be recalled by the RMO remains. The proposed amendments bring the position of restricted and unrestricted patients into line by changing the maximum six-month period provided in the schedule to one of 12 months. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("Subsection (1) applies") and insert ("Subsections (1) and (1A) apply").
The noble Baroness said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Building Societies (Commercial Assets) Order 1995
7.23 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House will be aware, the Government recently completed their review of the Building Societies Act 1986. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury announced on 24th February our intention, when a suitable opportunity arises, to replace the current prescriptive legislation governing societies' powers with a more flexible framework and to introduce a package of measures to improve societies' accountability to their members.
At the end of the first stage of the review of the 1986 Act the Government announced three specific measures to extend societies' powers by, first, increasing from 40 to 50 per cent. the limit on funds they can raise in the wholesale market; secondly, allowing them to own general insurance companies writing buildings and contents insurance and mortgage payment protection policies; and, thirdly, allowing them to make loans to businesses without the security of a mortgage on land.
The first of these measures is to be implemented shortly through an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. The second will be made, once the details have been finalised, by an order under the Building Societies Act. The third is the subject of the order before the House today.
The order allows societies to lend to bodies corporate, including companies and public authorities, as well as to unincorporated entities such as business partnerships, clubs and associations. Societies will be able to provide business finance, conventional loans and overdrafts, as well as the purchase of debt securities and the acquisition of loans or debts owing to third parties. The power to lend unsecured to business is to be restricted, for the time being, to societies with assets above the qualifying asset holding of £100 million. However,
168
when the conclusions of the recent review of the Act are fully implemented, the qualifying asset holding will be abolished and any society will he able to do business lending provided the activity is permitted by its memorandum and it has satisfied the Building Societies Commission on prudential grounds.
If Parliament approves the order, two further orders will be made under the Building Societies Act following the negative resolution procedure. These will allow societies to do business lending through subsidiaries and to offer certain banking services, such as the provision of guarantees, to business customers.
The order represents the first step in implementing the outcome of the Government's review of the Building Societies Act. It opens a new and important business opportunity to societies, while introducing competition to an area which has until now been dominated by a few large institutions. This change has been welcomed by societies, and the details of the order have benefited from consultations with that sector. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Henley.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, I rise to give a welcome to the order. As my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alistair Darling, said when this matter went through the Second Standing Committee, in general we support the thrust of what the Government are doing in respect of the building societies movement. I doubt whether there are any Members of the House who have not had direct personal dealings with building societies. I happen to be a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, as indeed are other noble Lords. However, that does not mean that we can claim that we are more knowledgeable than others but that we are friendly to the Building Societies Association.
Can the Minister satisfy me that the purpose of the package of measures is to improve societies' accountability to their members? What are the grounds for feeling that they ought to he more accountable to their members? I shall not raise any of the big issues of mergers and the manner in which shareholders have been dealt with. However, the Minister will recall that the purpose of the package is to improve societies' accountability. Therefore, there must be some question marks against the current state of accountability.
The measure is designed to extend societies' powers. As a layman, I am somewhat puzzled because it allows a building society to make loans to businesses without the security of a mortgage on land. Of course, one associates land with a building society and assumes that land is the safest form of asset against which a loan can be secured.
I plead ignorance; but am I right in believing that that is part of the thrust of turning a building society into a lending institution and in effect extending the scope to allow a building society to do much more than it did before the changes were brought about?

169
The Minister also told the House that for a short time the ability to operate under this order is to be restricted to societies with assets above the qualifying asset-holding figure of £100 million. Can the Minister tell the House how many societies that covers? Does that figure cover the bulk of them? The noble Lord also told us that the activities had to be in accordance with the memorandum of the building society and that the Building Societies Commission had to vet that on prudential grounds. Can the Minister give one or two illustrations of what would be held as "imprudential" grounds?
Apart from those matters, we on this side of the House recognise that, among the many institutions which affect the lives of ordinary people, building societies are very precious. They play a very important part in the business life of the community and, as I said earlier, in the domestic life of so many people. Anything which the Government say is desirable to make building societies more accountable and responsible, we on this side of the House warmly welcome.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome of this order. He asked a number of questions, some of which I shall answer and others which I shall write to him about in due course, if he prefers.
First, as regards accountability, I believe the important thing to remember is that it is for the building societies themselves to decide. A number of societies are obviously hoping to adopt that power at their next
170
annual general meeting. It will be for them to consider exercising that power thereafter. It will be a matter for the annual general meeting to decide whether the building society should extend into that field.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked, in a sense, about the riskiness of this venture and whether building societies should be allowed to lend when there is not the security of land. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, but I believe that that is something which the building societies themselves must consider. If they believe that they can make a profit from lending to businesses, that will obviously be in the members' interests. As I said earlier, the power to make a business loan must be adopted by a vote of members at the annual general meeting before the society can make use of that facility. Obviously, if members feel that it is not in their interests for the society to use that power, they would vote against its adoption.
The noble Lord also asked about the number of building societies with assets of over £100 million. I am advised there are about 50 building societies above that qualifying asset-holding level and something of the order of 30 below that. Finally, the noble Lord asked about the role of the Building Societies Commission. Obviously, it will be for the commission to advise whether or not these matters are prudent. I would prefer to write to the noble Lord about that in slightly greater detail. Again, I thank the noble Lord for his general welcome for this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.

  China: Arms Sales Embargo
  China: Arms Sales Embargo
  EU: Forthcoming Council Business
  EU: Forthcoming Council Business
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Tacrine
  Tacrine
  Palace of Westminster: Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Palace of Westminster: Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers, 30 March
  Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers, 30 March
  Sports Ground Safety Work: Funding
  Sports Ground Safety Work: Funding