Sitting of 20 April 1995

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 27 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Boot Camps
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his plans for boot camps for young offenders. [18354]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I have received one request in this House to consider introducing a pilot scheme on the lines of American boot camps, and a question about studies on boot camps. In addition, I have received a small number of letters from members of the public recording their views for and against the introduction of boot camps.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what most people want for young offenders in this country is not only rehabilitation but appropriate punishment that acts as a deterrent? Will he look at a scheme operated by the Airport Initiative in West Linton in Scotland, which is handled by former special forces people—former marines and paratroopers—and has a 100 per cent. record in ensuring that those who successfully complete the course do not reoffend?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is closely examining the scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree that it shows signs of being a promising development in the treatment of young offenders.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Home Secretary confirm that last year he commissioned a report on the operation of boot camps in the United States at a cost of £16,000? Will he further confirm that the conclusions of that report were, first, that there would be no appreciable cost savings from boot camps, and secondly, that the rate of re-offending in the American experience was not
    322
    appreciably different from that of any other form of punishment? Is that not just another example of the Home Secretary talking tough but acting ineffectively?
    Mr. Howard: No, it is certainly not. It is not surprising to anyone on the Government Benches that any mention of discipline for young offenders has those on the Opposition Benches running a mile, as we have just seen.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the boot camps in the United States combine training, discipline, respect for others, anger management and respect for families and are voluntary, and that that kind of treatment might well benefit certain targeted offenders in this country?
    Mr. Howard: I am prepared to learn lessons wherever we can to provide the most effective regime for young offenders. If we can borrow from the best in the United States and add it to the best that we have in this country, I am certainly prepared to do that.

    Drug-related Crime
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total value of property stolen in 1994 to finance drug addiction. [18355]
    Mr. Howard: The involvement of drug misusers in criminal activity is difficult to quantify. It has not been possible so far to estimate with any precision the amount of crime that is drug related.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Home Secretary aware that it costs a heroin addict some £30,000 a year to finance the habit? Does he agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that there is a clear connection between drug misuse and the committing of crimes to fund such abuse? In the light of those facts, does he accept that the Government were simply wrong to cease the funding of residential treatment for drug addicts and to stop the funding of drug advisers in our schools?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is considerably out of date. He should be aware that we are funding programmes to bring home to our schoolchildren the evils of drug misuse. We are in fact spending about £500 million a year on tackling drugs. The Home Office drugs prevention initiative has been renewed and extended from 1 April 1995 and the Government as a whole will shortly publish a White Paper which will set out our co-ordinated overall strategy for tackling drug misuse at all levels and in all ways.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the clear link that there is between drug misuse and property crime, it is right to pursue, as he is doing, the rigorous policy of getting rid of drugs inside our prisons?
    Returning to the issue of the boot camp, is it not a fact that the "no-drug" culture in the American boot camp is one of its most endearing features?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of tackling drug misuse in prisons, which is far too prevalent. The mandatory drug-testing regime for which provision was made in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is now being introduced in our

    323
    prisons. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise the importance of the drug-free environment in boot camps in the United States.

    Racist Attacks
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of racist attacks. [18356]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government are determined to tackle racial violence wherever it occurs. I am aware of recent deplorable incidents in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I know that the police give the highest priority to investigating those crimes.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for his statement of intent, but the number of racial attacks has doubled since 1988. The Government have failed to carry out the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee that they should introduce a separate offence with higher penalties, and the Government have done nothing to tackle the attacks in my constituency and elsewhere. If they are not prepared to accept the Select Committee's report, what are they prepared to do?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is usually a fair man, knows in his heart of hearts that what he has just said to the House is not the case at all. The Government have taken action. We have introduced a power of arrest for those who distribute racially offensive material and, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we introduced a specific offence of intentional harassment.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that it would not be sensible to create a separate specific racial attack offence. It would create yet another hurdle for the Crown Prosecution Service to have to prove that there was racial motivation.
    We have referred many of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee to the new racial attacks group which has been reinstituted.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty's judges already have the power to regard racial motivation as an aggravating factor, and that they can and do impose greater penalties in cases involving that?
    Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valid argument. There have been several recent successful convictions for violence involving racial motivation. In one such case, the Lord Chief Justice himself emphasised that racial motivation was a severely aggravating factor. Therefore, in those cases, the courts can impose very severe sentences indeed.

    Police (Defensive Equipment)
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the police service about the possible introduction of (a) the pepper spray and (b) CS gas as defensive equipment. [18358]
    Mr. Howard: I took full account of the opinions of all the police staff associations before announcing my support for police trials of CS spray for self-defence.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the tragic death this week of PC
    324
    Phillip Walters, the evaluation of that incapacitant spray is timely and necessary? Will he also tell the House whether that is an interim measure pending further evaluation of the health and safety issues surrounding the possible introduction of the pepper spray?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing its condemnation of the callous murder of PC Walters, which reminds us yet again of the risks and the dangers that police officers run on our behalf day in, day out. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of PC Walters.
    As to my hon. Friend's question about sprays, he is right to say that a number of pilot schemes are proposed. We shall evaluate the results and then decide how to proceed.
    Mr. Beith: I can assure the Home Secretary that there is outrage in all parts of the House at the death of a courageous police officer. In the Metropolitan police area, is body armour available to officers who believe that their duties will require them to use it? Are arms and armed response units available in all the circumstances where officers judge that they may be required? If those things are not done, the pressure for routine arming of the police so that they may be protected will become irresistible. I think that, like me, the Home Secretary would not wish that to happen if it can be avoided by the effective use of arms in a more controlled way.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will know that the deployment of body armour and armed response vehicles is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I can confirm that those two pieces of equipment are available—body armour is now available in significant quantities. The difficulty is that no entirely satisfactory sort of armour has yet been found that is both effective and light enough to be worn for prolonged periods. That is an on-going problem, and research is continuing to try to find body armour that is both effective and can be worn comfortably for long periods.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not absurd that the majority of policemen who require bullet-proof vests, and obviously want the best ones, should have to pay about £300 of their own money for them? In his consultations with the police, will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the matter and ensure that, in future, all police can get bullet-proof vests if they want them without having to pay for them out of their own money?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware that chief officers are increasingly making body armour available for the officers in their force—its availability is extending all the time. I gave the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) information about its availability in the Metropolitan force, and body armour is becoming increasingly available elsewhere.
    Mr. Straw: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I believe that the House felt intense anger and shock when the news came through yesterday of the killing of Police Constable Phillip Walters by an armed thug. Police Constable Walters was showing the same selfless courage as is shown every day by thousands of unarmed police

    325
    officers across the country. I commend what the Secretary of State said yesterday about the routine arming of police. Does he agree that, in making difficult judgments about the availability of CS gas canisters or pepper sprays, the only issue is the protection of the police and of the public?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, the only relevant criteria in the measures that I have announced are the protection of the police and of the public. The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that I have taken a number of measures since holding my present post to increase the availability of equipment that helps the police in the performance of their daily duties. They now have more batons and the availability of body army is increasing.
    I hope that the CS spray will be a valuable addition to the equipment available to them. We must also recognise that no piece of equipment—not even the routine arming of the police—can ever offer an absolute guarantee of the safety of those on whose bravery and courage we have to rely day and night. We must always keep that in the forefront of our minds. We should always be aware of the deep debt that we owe to the police officers of this country.

    Prisons (Security Problems)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on continuing security problems in prisons. [18359]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have received a number of representations from a variety of sources.
    Mr. Miller: The Minister will, of course, confirm that his Department has received representations from me regarding the escape of prisoner Roy Higginson and the subsequent shambles. The Minister will be aware that one of my concerns was the bizarre way that Mr. Higginson was able to carry on suing his neighbour, with the use of a legal aid certificate, while on the run. The series of events surrounding the case represent mistakes within the Prison Service, mistakes in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service operated, mistakes in the guidance given to magistrates about remand and perhaps errors of judgment on the part of the police. In all areas, the responsibility rests fairly and squarely with the Home Secretary. When will he wake up to his responsibilities?
    Mr. Forsyth: That question implies that my right hon. Friend can take the credit for a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of escapes from our prisons.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the security problems and the amount of drugs that are reported to be circulating in prisons today, does my right hon. Friend believe that the time is right to reintroduce closed family visiting for a percentage of prisoners' sentences? Open visiting should be reintroduced only when a prisoner has shown that he means to go straight and can be relied upon.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree that, in cases where people are clearly involved in drug misuse in prisons, the introduction of closed visits might be appropriate. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce closed visits as a general rule. People are sent to prison partly for rehabilitation and partly for
    326
    punishment. It is offenders who should be punished, not their families. I believe that it would be quite wrong to prevent families from being able to visit prisoners.
    Mr. Trimble: How long does it take to implement necessary security measures in prisons? I know of a case whereby a serious incident in December revealed the need to install a new fence in a prison, but three months later, in March, the absence of the fence facilitated a serious riot in which prisoners gained control of a substantial part of that prison. I was told afterwards that the prison authorities were still going through the bureaucratic procedures to authorise the necessary expenditure. That incident did not take place in a prison for which the Minister is responsible, but I wonder whether the same sorts of bureaucratic and financial delays that occur in Northern Ireland also happen in the English prison service.
    Mr. Forsyth: Without knowing the details of the case, I am unable to comment upon it or to make a comparison. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend but it falls within the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether speedy and effective action is taken when breaches or weaknesses in prison security are found. I expect the answer to be yes on every occasion. As the hon. Gentleman will know, following the incidents at Whitemoor and Parkhurst, my right hon. Friend asked Sir John Learmont to examine security across the whole Prison Service. We intend to take every conceivable step to ensure that the highest standards of security apply.
    Mr. Evennett: May I commend to my right hon. Friend the work of the governor and the staff of Belmarsh prison in Thamesmead and I urge him to pay them a visit soon. When will his proposals about the new regime of prison discipline be published?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Belmarsh, which my right hon. Friend visited recently. As to the main substance of my hon. Friend's question, we hope to be able to publish the proposals shortly.

    Drugs Strategy
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new drugs strategy will be operational. [18360]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): A new drugs strategy for England for the period 1995–98 will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly. It is the outcome of a review co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and will start to come into effect immediately.
    Mr. Mudie: The three-year strategy begins this year but we are yet to see the White Paper, which may need legislative back-up. Does the Minister agree that any delay in introducing a timetable would be totally unacceptable, particularly where the lives of children are at risk? If he does agree, will he say whether any steps have been taken to put into effect one key element of

    327
    the strategy, the drug action teams, which do not require legislation? If those steps have not been taken, why have they not been taken?
    Mr. Baker: I accept that implementation of the strategy is important and urgent and work is proceeding on it. Vigorous law enforcement will continue, but, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's second point, there will be a new emphasis on drug education and prevention. At local level, the Government propose to establish about 100 multi-agency drug action teams to pursue common aims while tailoring action plans to local problems and needs. The intention is to apply £8.5 million to those teams over the next three years, and to get on with that immediately.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the establishment of any new strategy for combating the illegal use of drugs, an example and information can be obtained by studying the programme in Buckland in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend visited last week? It shows just what can be achieved when local people and the police join together to drive out those who produce drug problems.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. and learned Friend saw for himself the excellent work in my hon. Friend's constituency, both in that scheme and as a example of partnership to defeat crime, which is an essential part of my right hon. Friend's crime-defeating programme.

    Racial Attacks Group
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to revive the inter-departmental racial attacks group as a standing committee; and if he will make a statement. [18361]
    Mr. Maclean: Since its inception in 1987, the racial attacks group has twice been reconvened to consider progress and chart new developments. On each occasion, time has been left to allow earlier recommendations to take effect. The group is currently examining the needs of local multi-agency racial attacks panels.
    Mr. Wray: I thank the Minister for reviving the racial attacks group. Why was it not involved in the first place, given the shocking state of affairs and the escalation of racial incidents? There were 791 incidents in Scotland last year, and the figure for England and Wales in 1992–1993 was 7,951, which rose to nearly 10,000 in 1993–94. Does he agree that the racial attacks group committee is not dealing with the problem and that we need a standing committee that reports back to Parliament?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The racial attacks group was not mothballed; it came together, made recommendations for the Government to implement and waited to see how those recommendations developed. We have reconvened it and given it a specific brief to deal with certain problems. I see no merit in its sitting continuously as a standing committee unless it has a proper job of work to do. As the hon. Gentleman quoted figures showing that racial incidents have increased, I am surprised that he did not quote the Strathclyde police area, where the number of racial incidents has fallen. In 1991,
    328
    there were 254 racial incidents; in 1994, the figure was down to 225. It is still too high, but at least the number is going down.
    Mr. Congdon: There is some evidence that persistent racial harassment can lead to more serious racial attacks. Does my hon. Friend consider that more can be done to help ethnic minorities overcome their reluctance to report persistent harassment?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, there can be. We took action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with the specific problem of harassment. I hope that that will have encouraged people to come forward. Also, the police are dealing with such issues sensitively and a large number of police forces now have special groups that are capable and qualified to deal with racial incidents. That will encourage greater reporting and give racial minorities confidence to report crime. The courts now have adequate powers to deal with such incidents.

    Prisoners (Police Cells)
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost per night of keeping a prisoner in a police cell in 1994. [18362]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The cost is £250.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that that is a costly and unsatisfactory method of holding prisoners and does not make the best use of police time? Given that prisons are overcrowded, would it not be better to use more resources on crime prevention and get more police on the beat, which would be more effective, more efficient and what the public desire?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we are doing all the things that he mentioned. I agree with him specifically about the use of police cells and the costs involved. That is why we plan to eliminate the use of police cells during this financial year.

    Immigration
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of (a) illegal immigrants and (b) bogus asylum seekers currently in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [18363]
    Mr. Howard: There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative. It is also difficult to estimate the precise extent of the abuse of asylum, but in 1994, around 80 per cent. of asylum decisions, amounting to some 16,000, were outright refusals.
    Mr. Robathan: I regret that it is impossible to have clear information on such matters because such information dispels misapprehension whereas disinformation, including wild stories in newspapers, exacerbates mistrust and harms race relations. In the interests of good race relations, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that both bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are pursued both fairly and firmly?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is an inseparable part of the good race relations record,

    329
    of which we can be proud, that we have a firm but fair immigration control. Our procedures are being abused both by illegal immigrants and by bogus asylum seekers. I recently announced two initiatives that will have a significant impact on the problem—greater use of containment powers and a spend-to-save initiative. I hope to announce further proposals shortly.
    Ms Short: Is not the problem of bogus asylum seekers largely the Government's fault? They allow delays to grow and grow within the system. There are agents who organise false claims whom the Home Office does not pursue and prosecute. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, if he were to eliminate delays and attack the false agents, we could be generous to the real asylum seekers?
    Mr. Howard: It is important to eliminate delays. That is precisely what the two initiatives that I announced in February are designed to achieve. It is absurd to suggest, however, that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is caused by the Government or by delays. Too many people wish to gain entry into this country and would use any means and any deceit to do so. I am determined to take effective action to prevent that happening.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for reiterating the need for a firm, fair and realistic policy. Does he agree that that would fit in well with pursuing our agreement on the Schengen agreement with the other member states? That would be an excellent objective for the future and would enhance the single market.
    Mr. Howard: No. I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Schengen agreement would involve the dismantling of our external frontiers, and we have no intention of doing that. Indeed, we shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that those frontiers remain in place.
    Dr. Howells: With regard to the measures taken by the Government to control the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country, will the Home Secretary confirm that there are 1.5 million container lorries a year coming through the port of Dover alone, and that the immigration and customs cover is so thin there that there is no possible way that we can know whether criminal gangs operating out of northern France are using the containers to bring in people? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to strengthen the cover at Dover and at other similar ports?
    Mr. Howard: We rely on intelligence as the most effective way of identifying the use of container lorries to permit some illegal immigrants to enter the country. It is absurd to suppose that a series of random checks is likely to get to grips with the problem. The effective use of intelligence is the way forward. We are improving the ways in which we use that means to detect, and to deal effectively with, those who use the container lorry method of illegally entering the country.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, as I am aware from my constituency experience of the Haslar detention centre, that it is not unusual for alleged illegal immigrants, when they realise that their application is likely to be rejected, to change their story and claim political asylum, and for the subsequent inquiries to take as long as a year? How can it possibly take that long to inquire into such a case?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right on all counts. It is because I am determined to do what is necessary to bring down the period that it takes to deal with these matters that I announced a substantial additional expenditure in February—some £37 million over three years—to enable us to deal with those cases more quickly. Much of the delay is caused by the extent to which our appeal procedure is still being abused. That is one of the areas to which I have paid close attention and which I hope to be able to remedy in the proposals that I intend to introduce shortly.

    Crime and Drugs
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between crime and drugs. [18364]
    Mr. Maclean: The exact nature and extent of the relationship are unclear, but the Government remain committed to tackling both drug misuse and other criminal activity.
    Mr. Alton: When the Government come to look at the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, will they look again at the seizure of assets and the way that money is diverted to central funds? Does the Minister not have some sympathy with the views of the Merseyside police authority, and other police authorities too, that funds that are sequestrated and seized from drug barons should go back into schemes that counter drug abuse and help those who have become drug addicts?
    Mr. Maclean: Although such a scheme has a superficial appeal, it could lead to erratic funding year by year, because it would depend on police forces getting sufficient assets every single year to continue their excellent work. I think that it is better to allocate the large amounts of money that we allocate—about £500 million per annum—on all aspects of drugs prevention and police work, and also the substantial funding that we make available to police forces. That ensures consistency and adequate funding and does not make the police service depend each year on haphazard drug catches.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the installation of closed circuit television in town centres is one of the ways of tackling crime, particularly drug crime? Will he accept the thanks of the people of Market Harborough since, as a result of the £40,000 grant from the Home Office, closed circuit television will shortly be installed to make the streets more secure?
    Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his wise words. If he cares to invite me to Market Harborough, I shall accept the thanks in person. The big boost that we have given to CCTV in the country should make a tremendous difference in helping the police. The 106 schemes that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to announce in England and Wales could mean up to 1,000 extra CCTV cameras, which will give help to the police and protection to the public, and reduce the fear of crime.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister says that the exact relationship between drugs and crime is unclear, but do he and the Home Secretary not now accept that there is a frightening link between drug-related crime and the use of weapons? Will the Minister remind the House of the

    331
    truth of events last year, that there was nothing in the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to deal with drug-related crime or weapons offences until the Labour party tabled amendments to increase penalties and make the law more effective?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to rewrite history. It would be better if he reminded the House of the number of occasions on which the official Opposition voted against parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and of their firm determination to abstain on parts of the Bill. They are now saying that they played an instrumental part in it, but they abstained on its Second Reading. The fact is that the Government have set key objectives for the police service: first, to bear down on violence; secondly, to bear down on burglary; and, thirdly, to bear down on local crime problems, particularly drugs. That is a measure of our commitment to dealing with the problem.

    Prison Building Programme
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison building programme. [18365]
    Mr. Howard: Six new prisons are planned, which will be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector. In addition, 2,000 new houseblock places are being provided at existing prisons over the next two years, and Lowdham Grange prison is to be rebuilt.
    Mr. Bruce: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that excellent answer? Will he confirm that he will ensure that we never return to the situation that was prevalent under the past Labour Government, when courts could not pass custodial sentences, or were dissuaded from doing so, because there were no places in prisons? If my right hon. and learned Friend is looking for additional places, there is room in Portland prisons to build and expand, creating more prison officer jobs on Portland. Will he look at Portland for the expansion of the prison service?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer, which I shall certainly bear in mind.
    Ms Janet Anderson: The Home Secretary has admitted that the Government now have no choice but to expand the prison-building programme massively. Is he aware that the number of women imprisoned for fine defaulting has almost doubled in the past five years, from 868 in 1989 to 1,440 last year? Can he explain that increase, and will he tell us whether he is satisfied that custodial sentences were both necessary and appropriate in all those cases?
    Mr. Howard: If custodial sentences had not been necessary and appropriate, they would not have been passed by the courts. It is the courts that pass such sentences. The hon. Lady will know that fine defaulters are sent to prison only for wilful refusal to pay: they are those who can pay, but won't pay. Those are the circumstances in which the courts decide that such a sentence is both necessary and appropriate.

    Liquor Licensing Regulations
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to remove unnecessary liquor licensing regulations. [18366]
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to remove unnecessary liquor licensing regulations. [18367]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: A number of measures are under consideration, and we have made provision to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays through legislation which is currently completing its passage through Parliament.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed changes in Sunday licensing are very popular, especially with the tourist trade? Does he accept, however, that certain licensing magistrates are making the award of children's certificates very difficult, and will he continue to keep the position under review?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have received representations from a number of hon. Members suggesting that the procedures to ensure—in accordance with the intentions of Parliament—that licences are available to allow children to go to into public houses where appropriate conditions exist are being frustrated by magistrates who are attaching onerous and unnecessary requirements to such licences. I am very concerned about those representations, and have asked Home Office officials to monitor what is happening.
    If there is evidence of widespread attempts to frustrate the wishes of Parliament, we will not hesitate to act. It is early days; the new procedures have been in place only since the beginning of the year. I hope that it will be recognised that the granting of children's licences was a very popular move, and was supported in all quarters of the House.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The country has 65,000 pubs, which are visited by 12.5 million people every week. We also have many millions of visitors, who find the great British pub extremely attractive. What they—and I—find less attractive and quaint is the 11 pm chucking-out time.
    Will my right hon. Friend take into account experiences on the continent, and consider measures which will allow people to drink after 11 pm without being forced to pay entrance fees in clubs? Could local licensing be introduced, so that any disruption to people living near pubs could be minimised but benefits to those who want to drink legitimately after 11 pm could be maximised?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend asks me to consider further liberalisation of licensing hours in respect of late-night opening. A number of concerns have been expressed about the opportunities for disruption, noise and disorder that that would create in certain communities; on the other hand, we have received representations from people who argue that it would be possible to allow local discretion for later opening. The matter is currently under consideration, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to reach a conclusion shortly. If we decided to take any further deregulatory steps, they would of course be subject to consultation.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the time has really come when we should consider the question of children in public houses, restaurants and other such places? In a modern civilised world, is it not time to follow the continental fashion, so that families can eat, drink, play and enjoy themselves together, without petty restrictions?
    Mr. Forsyth: That is precisely what the Government have done in introducing the new children's licences, although concern has been expressed about the policy's implementation by local magistrates. I agree, however, with the basic thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments that the licensing laws should exist only in so far as they are required to provide necessary protections. If unnecessary or over-bureaucratic provisions exist in the rules, they should be swept away. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative is about, and that is why we are about that business in the Home Office.

    Immigration Officers
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the quality of the welcome offered to visitors to the United Kingdom by immigration officers at airports and sea ports. [18368]
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: A substantial and independently managed survey conducted at the end of 1992 found that most passengers compared our control favourably with that of other countries, both in speed and efficiency, and in the courtesy shown by immigration officers. Of those interviewed, 97 per cent. said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment at immigration control.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the quality of the welcome at airports and sea ports is extremely important for the UK tourism industry. In that context, what more can he do to reduce the length of queues, especially at London Heathrow airport at peak times, and to encourage officials to smile at visitors?
    Mr. Baker: We are doing a great deal, leaving aside any instruction particularly to smile, and always observing the duty of the Immigration Service to maintain firm and fair immigration control. We are continually monitoring the queues at the major airports that my hon. Friend mentioned. We have had a quality of service initiative to lead to improvements of various types. We have introduced fast-track channels for business and first-class passengers. In time for the summer season, we are introducing earlier shifts at terminals where delays can occur because of bunching of early-morning flights. My hon. Friend will also want to know that we have a scheme for authorised tour groups of expedited clearance organised by the Immigration Service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 April. [18384]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Evennett: Did my right hon. Friend see last night's Labour party political broadcast? Can he confirm that, contrary to the information in that broadcast, under his Government since 1992 expenditure on education,
    334
    health and law and order has been substantially increased? Would he care to comment on that deplorable use of television to mislead the public?
    The Prime Minister: In answer to my hon. Friend's direct question, no, I did not see the Labour party political broadcast last night. I was much better occupied meeting health authority chairmen to discuss the success of our health reforms, but I do understand from the substantial publicity generated that it contained a number of inaccuracies.
    Over recent days, the Labour party has claimed that council tax is lower in Labour areas. It must know that, on a fair comparison of like for like and band for band, that is not true. Band for band, Labour councils cost more in each and every band. The Labour party must know that spending on health has gone up, spending on education has gone up, and spending on the police has gone up, contrary to what it has led people to believe. The new Labour party has had a lot to say about trust, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will withdraw the inaccuracies from the broadcast last night. If I may quote him, he has reached "a defining moment".
    Mr. Blair: On the Tories, truth and tax, will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, having fought the election on a pledge to cut tax year on year, as a result of the 20 new taxes since he was re-elected, the average family is £800 a year worse off? Is that true or false—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The House will have noticed that he has not taken the opportunity to withdraw the blatant untruths that he and his right hon. Friends have been peddling in recent days. He knows that those things are factually inaccurate. He continues to repeat them. He appears at press conferences where they are repeated. On that basis, if he had any trust, he is throwing it away.
    Mr. Blair: Let the country be the judge then. It is right, is it not, that on 27 March 1992, days before the general election, the Prime Minister pledged specifically that he would not extend value added tax? When the Labour party said that he would, we were accused of dishonesty and scaremongering. It is true, is it not, that at the very next Budget after that election, he extended VAT to fuel and power? Who told the truth then? Was it the Labour party which warned that the Tories would extend VAT or was it the Conservatives who promised that they would not?
    The Prime Minister: On matters of fact, within the last 48 hours, on matters readily determinable, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have told untruths and repeated those untruths. I set it out before the last election that I wished to see tax reduced. That was my position and it remains my position. When it is prudent to do so, we shall return to tax cutting. On that occasion, I hope that we will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. As to the earlier point, I repeat that within the last two days, the Opposition have stated repeatedly facts which they must know to be untrue. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw them?
    Mr. King: On behalf of this House and our country, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to the President of the United States and to the people of the United States our deepest sympathy for the terrible terrorist outrage that they have experienced? Will he

    335
    assure the President that any assistance that we can give through intelligence or other sources to help bring to justice those responsible for that outrage will be given? Will he reaffirm to the President our welcome for his firm assertion that terrorism must be fought from whatever quarter it may come?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is hard to convey the depth of feeling that everyone will have in their hearts about the hideous act of barbarism and terrorism that occurred in Oklahoma and the misery and death that it has caused. I have been in touch with President Clinton and I have expressed our profound sympathy to him, to that country and to the bereaved and injured. I told the President that we are ready to help in any way we can and, as events will show, we are assisting.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the whole House will support what the Prime Minister has just said. On the subject of cuts, will the Prime Minister accept that, as schools face the crisis caused by the Government's cutting of education funding across the country this year, they will be perplexed to understand why the Government have increased the funding on education quangos from less than £3 million in 1987 to more than £98 million this year? Why is that?
    The Prime Minister: We have increased funding on education right across the board, consistently year after year. That is why more than 50 per cent. extra has been spent on every pupil up and down the country since we came into office. That is why more than 50 per cent. more is spent on school books and it is why there are far more people in classrooms helping the teachers. It is why children are getting far better education results and why more of our youngsters are going on to university; it is because we have given a priority to education at primary level, secondary level, specialist level and university level, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the appalling tragedy at Oklahoma and the terrorist incident at Yokohama, it would be absolute folly to reduce expenditure or in any way to cut back on security and intelligence?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of security and intelligence and the important priority that we have given it. In addition, of course, to the appalling attack that we saw in Oklahoma, it was also a day on which we saw terrorist attacks in Spain and possibly also in Japan.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18386]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: As we all join in sympathy with the mourners and sufferers in the unspeakable terrorist outrage in Oklahoma, will the Prime Minister please consult the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary about the ways in which international terrorists are abusing our laws on asylum and sanctuary? Notorious criminals such as Ganouchi, who are seeking to escape justice in their own countries, are turning Britain into a well-known haven for terrorists. As international terrorists
    336
    know no boundaries and no frontiers and as no one knows where they will strike next, please will the Prime Minister give that matter absolute priority?
    The Prime Minister: I reject the suggestion that this country is in any way a haven for terrorists, but I share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of dealing with the problem. We attach a very high priority to countering any activity in the United Kingdom by international terrorist groups, and I can confirm to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are at the moment looking into the law on asylum, with the intention of making improvements and bringing them before the House. I hope that we will have widespread support across the Floor of the House for the measures against terrorism. I look forward to seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends in our Lobby on that particular matter. It is a matter to which we attach the very greatest importance.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the general public that there is no need for local authorities to dismiss teachers? Their income is not hypothecated. If they have to make savings, they can make them across the whole range of local government services. They could get rid of administrators or social workers, or stop printing political newspapers.
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we regard education as a priority for the Government. It will remain a priority. I believe that within local authority budgets, and education budgets in particular, the classroom teacher should remain the priority.
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18387]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Purchase: If the support grant settlement that applied to Westminster Tory council were applied to English authorities generally, would not 95 per cent. of Labour councils have no rate increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that, by contrast with Westminster's inflated grant, Wolverhampton has lost £8 million in grant and has had to make £7 million of cuts in its budget? Is not it time that the Prime Minister stopped taxing by stealth, came clean and put the formula correctly to the people of England?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is repeating yet more unsubstantiated and inaccurate Labour smears, as I will now demonstrate. The grant is determined by an objective formula which takes into—[Interruption.] What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that the previous Labour Government were more generous to Westminster as compared with, say, Liverpool, than the present Conservative Government. In 1978, they assessed Westminster's need per head at 49 per cent. more than Liverpool, compared with 42 per cent. more this year. The hon. Gentleman did not know that, because he just picked up the latest smear from Transport House. He should check his facts and withdraw.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.
    Mr. Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow the north American habit of paid political advertising on television? It might lead to an extension of the kind of broadcast that was shown last night, which demonstrated that the person who authorised it is unprincipled, untrustworthy and should not be allowed to control public expenditure. He cannot tell an increase from a decrease.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly share that view about paid political broadcasting on television. I think that very few people would wish to see that. What we really saw last night was that behind the high-flown language of new Labour lies the gutter politics of old Labour. That is the case. It has always been the case and it is now becoming obvious.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18388]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: First, let me assure the Prime Minister that this question does not come from Transport House. Does he realise that, if Barnsley local authority received the same amount of Government grant per head as Westminster council, it would not have any need to levy a council tax at all and could re-pay each council tax payer a staggering £867 each, rather than having to face council tax capping, which will mean sacking teachers and increasing still further some of the largest class sizes in the country? Why should children in my constituency have to suffer to subsidise a corrupt council?
    The Prime Minister: If every council in the country had the same grant as Tower Hamlets, they could make a bigger reduction than they could for Westminster.
    Mr. Rowe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal-Labour coalition, which now tries to control Kent county council, discovered at its recent meeting that it had underspent by £17 million, yet nevertheless flatly refused to fund the teachers' pay increase? Is that not a cynical abuse of the children in our schools for party political purposes?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that could be echoed by many of my other hon. Friends who are unfortunate enough to have either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 APRIL—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Team and Group Ministries Measure, which is a Church of England (General Synod) Measure.
TUESDAY 25 APRIL—Second Reading of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 APRIL—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill.
THURSDAY 27 APRIL—Debate on China and Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 26 April at 10.30 am to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13 December 1994, relating to the accession of new member states to the European Union.
[Wednesday 26 April:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Enlargement of the European Union. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 70-ii (1994–95).]
As for the following week, I am at present able to say only that the business on Monday 1 May will be the remaining stages of the Children (Scotland) Bill.
Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information and suggest that, in view of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time earlier, perhaps he would like to reconsider that business so that we may have a debate in Government time, and an explanation from the Government, on why the typical family is paying £800 a year more in tax?
On the specific business of the House next week, will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage on rugby? Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State will be able to give an early response to the report's recommendations, especially that to withdraw funding from rugby union? Will the Secretary of State ensure that existing rugby union applications for public funding are frozen until decisions following on from that report are made?
On the related matter of the restructuring of rugby league, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will there be any response, during the debate on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Wednesday morning, to the need to protect some of the smaller rugby clubs, whose future is threatened by that particular deal, which seems to be a case of someone trying up buy up an entire sport and which is causing concern among hon. Members of all parties?
340
On a totally different issue, at present excluded from next week's business, the Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday the Foreign Secretary made a statement in New York about the non-proliferation treaty. Can he tell us when the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on the Government's position to the House? Members of Parliament—on both sides of the House, I should have thought—are becoming increasingly concerned about the contempt for the House shown by Ministers. It is now becoming customary for important statements to be made at press conferences or in written answers, rather than being made to the House first. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that important point on board and ensure that in future important statements are made in person by Ministers to the House of Commons?
Finally, I protest most strongly about the unwillingness of the Leader of the House to find time for a Supply day next week. On 30 March I mentioned the need for an early Supply day, and on Tuesday I asked for an assurance that the rearrangement of proceedings on the Criminal Appeal Bill should not prevent us from having one. As next week's business cannot possibly all be categorised as urgent, why can we not have a Supply day next week? What are the Government afraid of—that we shall have a debate on London health?
Mr. Newton: Of course I always respond in good faith to what the hon. Lady says about Opposition days. Despite what she said, she might reasonably recognise that there is a need to make progress on some quite important—indeed, very important—measures, many of which, including the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill and the Criminal Appeal Bill, were the subject of strong Opposition representations at the time of the Queen's Speech. There has also been substantial pressure from both sides of the House for a debate on Hong Kong and China, and I have responded to that.
The hon. Lady will know that our aim regarding the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty by a substantial majority. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House if and when he judges it appropriate. She will know, and, I hope, accept, that I am always concerned to protect the rights of the House in that matter. But I also note her concern, and will certainly continue to ensure that Ministers make statements to the House when it seems right to do so—as, indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did yesterday.
As for rugby league, I cannot sensibly attempt to predict or pre-empt the contents of the speeches that will be made during the Adjournment debate on Wednesday, but I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's concern to the attention of the Minister who will speak in that debate. As for referring the proposal for a rugby super-league to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that is of course a matter entirely for the Director General of Fair Trading. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in Sports Council decisions on the funding of rugby union, nor would we wish to discriminate against rugby union in favour of rugby league.
Lastly, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied entirely convincingly to the points raised about taxation in earlier exchanges.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not time that the House had a debate on the economy? Can my right hon.

341
Friend tell us when the Opposition last requested a Supply day debate on that subject? Was not that a long time ago, and have the Opposition anything to hide?
Mr. Newton: That was so long ago that it is beyond my memory. It may be relevant to observe that I have repeatedly made it clear to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that, were she to ask for a debate on the continuing fall in unemployment, that might be an attractive proposition.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the welcome initiative by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in securing an Adjournment debate on nurses' pay this evening, will the Government give Government time for a proper debate on the pay review recommendation restricting the nurses' pay increase to 1 per cent. nationally, with 2 per cent. to be negotiated locally? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is disturbing evidence that worrying conditions are being attached to any locally agreed increases? Should not the matter be discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Newton: More than 100 trusts have made known their pay offers to nurses, and the majority of those offers are around 3 per cent. Local pay negotiation on the basis recommended by the pay review body—I emphasise the word recommended—is the right way forward.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the remarkable progress made in terms of early-day motion 186, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
[That this House calls attention, in this 50th anniversary year of victory in the Second World War, to the proposals by the Officers' Pensions Society and the War Widows' Association of Great Britain, wholly supported by the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, to honour the dead of two world wars and the campaigns since 1945, by paying Britain's war widows a pension for life and the widows of servicemen a pension of at least half that of their late husbands; and urges Her Majesty's Government to make a positive response to proposals which command such warm and widespread support throughout Britain.]
The motion has the support of 235 hon. Members, and I was assured yesterday that a further 45 who could not sign it have given their support in writing. Could my right hon. Friend say what the Government's view is on the matter? We are now approaching the point where we shall be celebrating VE day over the weekend of 6, 7 and 8 May, and there is speculation in the press that ought to be put to rest.
Mr. Newton: It is appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to set out the Government's position in the debate on Monday. I have his authority to say that I do not anticipate that the indication that he will give will be in a direction unwelcome to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that the BBC has, hour by hour today, been broadcasting details of the Nolan report?
342
Since the BBC's accounts of what the report says have gone unchallenged, should not Members have details from Nolan and also a ministerial statement?
Mr. Newton: There is no suggestion that the leak—if that is what it is—described by the right hon. Gentleman has come from the Government. Clearly, the content of the Nolan report is a matter for the Nolan committee, and it is to the committee that the right hon. Gentleman's question should be directed.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend knows that I and many of my hon. Friends want to see the introduction of a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, to prevent both benefit fraud and further loss of life in fires. I understand that the measure will come before the relevant Committee in the near future. Once that has been done, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the matter, so that the measure can be introduced as soon as possible to prevent further loss of life?
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it unfriendly, but merely an expression of propriety, if I observe that, were his intelligence to be correct, I am the Chairman of the Committee to which the proposals would come. I undertake to bear the point in mind.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep sense of seething resentment in the national health service over the pay review arrangements? Does he understand that some health service workers object strongly to the fact that others have been singled out for a 3 per cent. rise, while they must accept a 1 per cent. rise? Is not it time for a full debate here in Parliament, so that the Government can at least explain why they are proceeding in this utterly monstrous way?
Mr. Newton: I said last week, or perhaps the week before, that the introduction of an independent pay review body was welcomed by the profession. Normally, there has been understandable pressure to implement its recommendations in full. That is what has happened.
Sir Norman Fowler: Is it still the Government's intention to make a statement on the rules governing cross-media ownership? If so, when can we expect that statement to be made?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend knows well that the matters are under examination, but I cannot at the moment forecast when a statement might be made.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Bearing in mind the fact that the part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that dealt with new age travellers has not yet come into force for reasons which, I believe, are related to Europe, does the Leader of the House accept that there is still a large problem in my constituency and in the surrounding area with people known as local travellers, who cover their caravans and park on public land? It can take seven to 10 days to get them to leave. They cause enormous damage, distress, mess and waste. May the House have an urgent debate on that subject to see what can be done on behalf of communities such as mine, which are suffering from such invasions time and again?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I shall not be thought ungenerous if I harbour the suspicion that that question

343
may be a frustrated supplementary from Home Office questions. [Interruption.] I see that I have guessed right. In that case, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the scandalous proposal being considered by Essex county council to deprive children attending Southend's four excellent grammar schools of free school transport, and the fact that the only children who will suffer will be those in low-income households in Southend and Shoeburyness, may we debate the matter next week? We could then simply ask what the decent and committed socialist and Liberal people of the past, who fought so hard for the underprivileged, would have thought of that scandalous proposal by Lib-Lab-controlled Essex county council.
Mr. Newton: I hope that it is not an improper use of the Dispatch Box to say that I have made an almost identical point in a letter to the chairman of the Essex education committee following many representations from my constituents, and I share my hon. Friend's views. I hope that he will succeed in obtaining a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate to ventilate that matter.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Had the Leader of the House been in his place earlier, he would have heard the Home Secretary tell the House that women fine defaulters are gaoled only if they wilfully refuse to pay their fines. Clearly, that is not the case and they are gaoled for something called culpable neglect, which basically means that they are poor and choose to spend their money on other essentials, such as feeding their children. In last month's Question Time, the Home Secretary showed his ignorance of the options available to magistrates courts in dealing with fine defaulters, much to the dismay of the Magistrates Association. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary brushes up his knowledge of the criminal justice system before he next comes to the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady observed, I was not able to be present for Home Office questions. Not having heard what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I do not propose to comment, beyond saying that I regard the hon. Lady's remarks as tendentious and offensive.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on local government taxation, so that the unquestionable fact may be brought out that Labour councils tax people more than Conservative councils? Ealing Labour council has put up council tax by 10 per cent. while drastically cutting services and damaging children's education, especially that of children with special needs, which should be looked after.
Mr. Newton: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. On a band-for-band comparison, there is no doubt that Conservative councils come out better than Labour and Liberal councils. In the forthcoming year, the average Labour council tax bill will be nearly 40 per cent.
344
more than the average Conservative council tax bill in every band, and the average Liberal Democrat council tax bill will be 25 per cent. more.
Mr. Terry Lewis: May I assure the Leader of the House that my question is not a frustrated overspill from Home Office questions, but a serious request for an early debate on firearms? Over the past couple of days in Salford, legally held firearms have again been stolen from private premises. This is the second time in the past few months that I have raised the matter in the House. The guns taken in the first burglary have claimed three lives. There was a death in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) over the weekend and a serious shooting in Bolton. We are reaching epidemic proportions of legally held firearms being stolen and entering the criminal fraternity. The matter needs to be debated, and the House needs to know exactly what is going on in some of the areas that I have just mentioned.
Mr. Newton: That is indeed a serious question, and demands a comparable response. I shall bring the question and the anxieties underlying it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I also believe that that sounds like a good subject for a Wednesday morning debate, were the hon. Gentleman to consider applying for one and to be successful.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) for a debate on the economy? I say that especially because there is talk in some circles of a further increase in the base rate. Bearing in mind the fact that any further increase in interest rates would be very detrimental to our economic recovery, and that most of the purchases that the United Kingdom makes are in dollars, not in deutschmarks, and it is against the deutschmark that the pound has decreased in value, it is vital, if this country is to make an economic recovery, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are made well aware of the opinions held in all parts of the House.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has struck a blow in that direction by asking his question, which I am sure will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the report published this week by Crisis, highlighting the fact that, after 30 years, tuberculosis has returned to London streets? In view of that, why has the Cabinet blocked the Opposition Supply day debate on London's health services? Is it because criticism of the health service reforms, and indeed of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is now being made from both sides of the House? If that is the case, surely what should be of primary concern when choosing debates in the House is Londoners' health needs, not the needs of failing Secretaries of State.
Mr. Newton: I simply do not accept the suggestion about blocking a specific debate on a specific subject. As far as I am aware, my principal contribution in the legislative programme area for which I am especially

345
responsible has been to provide time for an important Bill connected with the further reorganisation of the health service, to improve it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend reconsider the subject of next Thursday's foreign affairs debate? Is it not the case that the really urgent subject that needs the immediate attention of the House is the developing crisis in former Yugoslavia and particularly Bosnia, especially as, in recent days, three British soldiers were wounded, one seriously, and two French soldiers belonging to the United Nations Protection Force were killed?
Mr. Newton: Of course, without in any way minimising—quite the reverse—the importance of the matter that my hon. Friend mentioned, I think that he will acknowledge that the issue of China and Hong Kong and the British relationship is also of considerable importance, and I have been pressed for a debate about that at business questions in several recent weeks. I have so far been able to respond to that, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's representations in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the private Members' Bills that could be debated on Friday 28 April is the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—that is, if it is able to proceed through Committee next week. To assist, it would be useful if time were made available for that Committee to sit on Wednesday afternoon, not only on Wednesday morning, and potentially on Thursday. I understand that the Leader of the House would have to place a motion on the Order Paper to facilitate that. I am asking him to do that, to give the House a chance to debate that crucial Bill, which was so strongly supported on Second Reading.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take the opportunity—I hope that he will think it in order—to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in telephoning me earlier to ask me to consider that matter. I said then that I would consider it but that that would be against the background of my repeated comments in the House in recent weeks that I did not anticipate changing the normal arrangements for private Members' Bills, so I would not wish to raise false hopes. However, I shall reply to him formally on the matter.
Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of gross inaccuracies in the Labour party political broadcast last evening, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to come to the House next week to make a statement about whether that broadcast complied with existing law on broadcasting standards? Is it not appropriate to refer the wilful attempt by the shadow Chancellor to mislead the British people to the Nolan committee?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some good points, following on from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions. If I were to arrange a debate on such matters, I would prefer to arrange one in which the Government's record, not least in spending on education, health and police, could be fully set out.
Mr. Derek Enright: Does the Leader of the House recall that at Edinburgh, shortly before the last election, the Prime Minister said that the Government had
346
an allergy to tax and wanted to bring it down? Could we have a debate on the history of this Government and their tax record?
Mr. Newton: I have adverted to that subject once in exchanges today, following on from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions. I would be more attracted by the hon. Gentleman's proposition were he to advert to the fact that more than 5 million people now pay tax at only 20p in the pound as a result of the Government's actions.
Mr. Barry Field: Following the welcome news from my right hon. Friend about war widows' pensions, could he use his considerable influence to see whether there is support throughout the House for Big Ben to ring out a double noonday chime to mark the end of hostilities in Europe on VE day and the part that the BBC and the chimes of Big Ben played in keeping the flame of hope alive in the darkest hours that the world has ever seen and to record the privileges in the House that we enjoy today because of the sacrifices made by those men and women?
Mr. Newton: I would certainly want to underline and express my agreement with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I had not contemplated interfering with Big Ben as part of the celebrations. I shall reflect on that suggestion.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Given the low level of the pound, coupled with increased taxation and the speculation about possible rises in the base rate, may I add my voice to the calls that have been made on both sides of the House for an early debate on the Government's economic policy?
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman would undertake to look at the record on exports, the record on growth, the record on unemployment and the record on attracting inward investment, I would be more attracted by his proposition.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: If my right hon. Friend gives way to the Opposition Members who want a debate on health, could he ensure that it is wider than health in London, so that those of us who represent hospitals in the provinces can not only say with what success we have built 800 new hospitals as a result of spreading resources more widely, but how successful hospitals such as Burton hospital are? Burton hospital has a charter mark for excellence that is unsurpassed in the rest of the country. It leads the country in electronic and technical advances, has increased the number of consultants by 12 and has slashed waiting times by half. Such successes should be set against the ridiculous over-concentration of criticisms about what is happening in London.
Mr. Newton: One conspicuous feature of recent debate on such matters has been that the voice of those outside London has not been heard as clearly as the voice of those inside London. Historically, large numbers of people from outside London had to come into London for treatment because the facilities did not exist where they lived. That is precisely the imbalance that the Government are seeking to correct.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the astonishing and distressing news that I received yesterday in a letter from the head of the Prison Service,

347
telling me of the fivefold increase in the number of prisoners transferred from prisons to mental institutions—from 141 in 1985 to 770 now? The majority of them are people who were transferred before sentence and the increase coincides precisely with the care in the community programme. Until we have such a debate, the waste and cruelty of imprisoning people who are not criminals, but confused and mentally ill, will continue.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he has, in a sense, referred to the second health measure that I might have mentioned in an earlier answer. There is currently in front of the House a measure which is concerned with the care of people who are mentally ill and which is designed to tackle some of the problems that have been acknowledged.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May we have an early debate about regional development so that we can assess the success of the policy in some areas and explore how other areas, such as the south coast, can benefit from that successful policy?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. I understand the reason why she makes it. She will be aware that, in the recent review of the regional map, careful account was taken of the new economic pattern that is developing in some parts of the, country, including my hon. Friend's constituency.
Ms Janet Anderson: Does the Leader of the House recall the statement made by the Prime Minister at the launch of the Conservative manifesto in March 1992? He said:
"We want to see a cascade of wealth from one generation to another."
Is the Leader of the House aware that an increasing number of elderly people are being forced to sell their homes and to use their life savings in order to fund their stay in residential nursing homes? Is he further aware that the Sunday Express has called it a "tax on care", which has been introduced by stealth? Will he assure us that there will be an early debate on the Government's taxation by stealth and their general taxation policy?
Mr. Newton: While I do not accept for a moment the hon. Lady's description, as always I shall courteously bear in mind her request for a debate.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate on copyright and rights of performance—a subject that has not been debated in the House for more than five years? A large number of musicians, composers and conductors living in my constituency have expressed great concern about the copyright and rights of performance regulations. They believe that they will suffer major disadvantages compared with their colleagues in other European countries. They are also worried about the possible extensions of copyright. Will the Leader of the House look into that matter and arrange to have a short but effective debate on the subject in order to set their minds at rest?
Mr. Newton: I can be fairly forthcoming on that matter, although I am not yet certain about the timing. I think my hon. Friend knows that changes in the United
348
Kingdom copyright law affecting music and other areas will be necessary as a result of various Community directives that have been adopted already. The Government have consulted widely about the matter and we shall bring forward statutory instruments in due course. They will require the approval of both Houses, so Parliament will have an opportunity to consider such legislation.
Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House arrange to have an early debate about the possible privatisation of nuclear power stations? I understand that he or some of his Cabinet colleagues have been discussing that issue and it might prove helpful if the whole House were able to debate it also. We could then gauge whether the public are any happier about that proposal than they were about the President of the Board of Trade's previous privatisation suggestion.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that, if such a proposal were brought forward, appropriate opportunities would be arranged for the House to consider it.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an urgent debate about education? I raise this matter in light of the National Union of Teachers conference last weekend, when we witnessed horrendous behaviour by teachers, who not only mobbed the Labour education spokesman but threatened strike action. The House should hear the comments of the five Labour Members of Parliament who are sponsored by the NUT. They should come to the Chamber and confirm whether they stand by the NUT or whether they intend to resign their sponsorship.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be widely echoed, certainly on Conservative Benches. Her suggestion will undoubtedly be considered by those at whom it is directed.
Mr. Don Touhig: At Wembley three years ago this month, the Prime Minister said:
"I'll tell you what you need for a strong recovery…you need low taxation…Let me tell you what you need to stay in recession. You need higher taxes".
He continued:
"So let's hear it for a successful, low tax economy".
In view of the calls from both sides of the House for a debate about the Government's taxation and economic policies, will the Leader of the House urgently reconsider the answers that he gave earlier and arrange to have such a debate as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: One of the reasons why Britain is attracting overseas investment to a greater extent than other European countries—and some investment from European countries themselves—and is an increasingly attractive place to do business, is precisely that we have such a tax regime in comparison with other countries in Europe.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the Leader of the House agree that, following the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), it might be a good idea to widen the scope of future debate to trade union behaviour in general, so that the public could focus on the important phenomenon whereby union leaders and the rank and file

349
are asserting themselves increasingly in a way that will be all too obvious in controlling the Labour party in the future, just as they did in the past?
Mr. Newton: Were I to accede to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), it would be right to widen the debate in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for the House to discuss local government finance and local taxation so that we can consider the contrast between the Government, who wish to maintain capping, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who wish to remove capping, which undoubtedly would lead to massive rises in taxation throughout the country?
We might also be able to examine specifically the expenditure of Lancashire county council. While the Government have increased expenditure in Lancashire by 1.4 per cent., Labour-controlled Lancashire county council has reduced the delegated budgets to our schools by 5.5 per cent. The county council is playing politics with the education of children in our county and that should not be allowed to happen.
Mr. Newton: Given the excess council taxation, for which I have already given the figures, in Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities, even with capping, my hon. Friend is certainly right to advert to the even greater problems that people under such councils would face with no capping.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend is already aware that the BBC has obtained and has been using all day information about the confidential deliberations of the Nolan committee. Will he make time for the House to consider that irony and whether high standards in public life are best served by the use of a betrayal of trust by somebody closely connected with the committee, or by a so-called public broadcasting service instigating and utilising such a misuse of trust?
Mr. Newton: As I said earlier, clearly it is primarily a matter for the Nolan committee, if it wishes to consider it, but I am quite sure that it will also be extremely concerned about what has occurred. I have no knowledge of where any such leak may have come from.

Privileges
Madam Speaker: We now come to the first motion on privileges. It might be helpful if I explain the procedure to be followed in the debate on the Committee of Privileges.
The motion itself will be moved formally, after which I propose to call, if they wish, each of the three Members whose conduct is called into question in the Committee's report. After that, I propose to call the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Privileges Committee. The debate will then proceed in the normal way. Under the business of the House motion agreed yesterday, the debate has to be brought to a conclusion after two hours.
My provisional selection of amendments was posted earlier today. The amendments that I shall be prepared to call formally when the debate is concluded are amendments (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). If amendment (b) were to be agreed to, amendment (c) would fall. Similarly, if amendment (d) were to be agreed to, amendments (e) and (f) would fall.
The House may find it convenient to know what action I propose to take regarding access to the precincts if—and I emphasise "if"—any hon. Member is suspended at the conclusion of proceedings on the motion. I am advised—and it is stated in "Erskine May" on page 399—that it is the practice of the House that
"A Member suspended from the service of the House on a motion not made pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 is not excluded from the precincts of the House unless the order for his suspension expressly provides therefor."
In interpreting this practice, it will be my intention to order that such access by any Member suspended today shall be confined to access to his office by the most direct route possible.
Finally, I know that the number of hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate is far more than I could possibly call in the two hours available, so I ask for brevity from those Members who catch my eye.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 351);

(ii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Colne Valley, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for ten sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period and

(iii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Bosworth, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period.— [Mr. Conway.]

4.9 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Privileges has criticised me for making a serious error of judgment. Last July, I accepted that I had made an error of judgment and I apologised to the House. I willingly repeat that apology once again to the House of Commons this afternoon.

351
I am grateful to the Privileges Committee for acknowledging that I came to my own conclusion that the proposed arrangement was not appropriate, that I returned a cheque uncashed at the earliest opportunity, and that I did that before I had any idea that it was a journalistic set-up.
I hope that the House will accept that, having made an initial misjudgment, I did then endeavour to behave according to the standards that the House expects of its Members: first, by inquiring how to register the proposed arrangement; secondly, by deciding within 24 hours, entirely of my own volition, not to accept any payment; and, thirdly, by immediately apologising to the House when I realised that my actions, to whatever degree, may have undermined the standing of the House. If the House feels that those endeavours failed in any respect, I can do no more than express my deep regret to the House. There are no other essential points about the Committee's report that I wish to make this afternoon.
I shall make two points in conclusion. First, I would like to express my thanks to many colleagues in the House, who have given me great support and friendship in recent weeks. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude for the understanding and support that I have received from my constituents. In the eight years that I have been in the House, I have always regarded the work, that I do in my constituency, especially the assistance that I am able to provide to individual constituents with their particular problems, as the most important part of my job as a Member. I rededicate myself to the service of my constituents in the months and years ahead.
Finally, in line with the original tradition of the House, I feel that it would be better if the House were to debate this matter unencumbered by my presence. I therefore intend now to withdraw from the House.
4.12 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my unreserved apologies to you and to the whole House for the error that I made on 7 July 1994. I fully accept that I did not evaluate wisely or correctly the proposition that was made to me. Nor did I seek proper advice. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that I should have done anything that could have damaged the reputation of the House or caused concern in the constituency of Bosworth, which I am proud to represent.
I hope that all hon. Members recognise that I much regret my error. I hope that hon. Members and you, Madam Speaker, will be able to accept my sincere apologies.
In accordance with precedent, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I intend to withdraw when I sit down.
I have always regarded being a Member of Parliament as a great honour and a great responsibility. I much regret what has occurred and I ask the House to accept my sincere apologies.
4.13 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I think that the House will wish to acknowledge, in the unhappy
352
situation with which we are all confronted, the clear and unequivocal apologies that my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have expressed. I shall endeavour to ensure that my speech is consistent with the note that they have struck.
The motion is in my name as Leader of the House, but I necessarily speak also as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, whose report we are debating. To chair the Committee in this instance was a task which I must say was as difficult and as unpleasant as any that I have had in over 20 years in this place. I have little doubt that all those who undertook membership of the Committee will share that view.
I see no need—nor do I wish to do so—to remind the House of the events that led to the report, to describe at length the evidence that we took or to rehearse the Committee's conclusions. The evidence has been published in full. The background and the conclusions reached by the Committee, having considered that evidence, are set out clearly in the report.
The motion that I move seeks the endorsement of the House for that report, including its criticism of The Sunday Times, and its conclusions in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The report incorporates the resolutions proposed by the Committee—namely, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) should be reprimanded and suspended without salary for 20 sitting days, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) should be reprimanded and suspended without salary for 10 sitting days.
In speaking to that, I should make two important points, the first of which is that the report relates to the first half of a two-part remit given by you, Madam Speaker, on 12 July last year, to examine the allegations against the Members named in The Sunday Times and to advise on the law and practice of Parliament in that area. The Committee felt—again, I believe, rightly—that it should deal with the specific allegations before turning to the second and wider part of the remit. Clearly, though, there are wider questions that the Committee will need to go on to consider. In doing that, it may, of course, need to take account of any relevant recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and of any consideration that the House itself might give to any such recommendations.
My second and more important point is to emphasise the fact that this was a unanimous report. Of course I understand that there are differences of opinion in the House, which are reflected in the amendments, just as there were—I hope that members of the Committee will not mind my acknowledging—in the discussion and deliberation in the Committee, but I believe that the Committee has done a service to the House by the agreement that was reached through careful and constructive discussion and which has achieved consensus among 17 senior long-standing Members of the House. Against that background, I would not think it right to advise the House to depart from those unanimous recommendations by accepting any of the amendments tabled.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In considering the report, I seek my right hon. Friend's clarification on

353
something which, frankly, I just do not understand. It relates to what is said in paragraph 48, under the heading Conclusions and Recommendations. It says:
"Against this the House will have to put into the balance the letter sent by Mr. Riddick to the Clerk of the Committee on 3rd March after he had given evidence."
So I turned to appendix A and read that letter, and re-read it. I do not understand why it should be set against the evidence given by my hon. Friend, because I find it a helpful letter. It was seeking to correct misleading reports in the press. It is indeed a polite letter; one might even say that it is the sort of letter that a solicitor might encourage one to write in the circumstances. If I am asked to put that with what my hon. Friend said, I wonder why the Committee made such a harsh recommendation in his case.
Mr. Newton: I think that the Committee simply felt that the further written material that my hon. Friend had provided needed to be taken into account with the oral evidence that he had given earlier and his earlier statement to the House. It was no more, I think, than that.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he confirm that today is a House of Commons day and that there will be a free vote? Can he advise me why the Government payroll vote is being whipped to vote for the suspension of my two hon. Friends?
Mr. Newton: I can confirm, as I said earlier, that although these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, it is not the norm, nor is it the practice today, for such voting to take place on a whipped party basis.
I conclude by simply saying that the reputation of the House has inescapably been damaged. We all want to do what we can to help restore it. I believe that the most effective step that we can take today towards restoring it is for the House to accept without variation the unanimous report that the Committee has laid before it.
4.19 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: There can be no doubt that the disciplining of hon. Members for breaches of the obligations that we have is one of the most distasteful tasks that the House is called on to perform. On occasions it is necessary, however, and today is one such occasion.
If standards of propriety are to be maintained—in the current climate, some would say "re-established"—it is essential for us to make it clear not only to hon. Members but, just as important, to the public that certain types of behaviour are unacceptable, and that such behaviour must and will result in sanctions from the House. There may be—indeed, I know that there are—disagreements about which sanctions are most appropriate in this case; but our first duty today is to send a clear message to the outside world that the House will take action against hon. Members who, by their behaviour, damage the reputation of Parliament itself. For that is what has happened: the action of a couple of hon. Members has undermined the reputation of us all.
I congratulate members of the Committee of Privileges on the work that they have done to produce their unanimous report. Unlike the Leader of the House, I do not serve on the Committee and am not privy to all its workings; but, given the difficulties involved in its investigation—especially the early, genuine
354
disagreements about the holding of sittings in public—I feel that its members should be congratulated, and thanked for their work.
Let me now deal with the Committee's specific recommendations, and the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I endorse the report as it stands, and I shall vote to accept all its recommendations: I think it important for us to endorse those recommendations, not least because this is a unanimous report from a Committee composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House, including some of our most senior colleagues.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend recall reports of a proposition that the Privileges Committee should conduct its proceedings in public, except where there is some compelling legal reason, more especially one that might involve a breach of natural justice? Does she agree with the opinion now widely held in all parties that the Committee of Privileges ought to come into the 20th century and conduct its proceedings—wherever possible, as I have said—in public, and not in secrecy?
Mrs. Taylor: The House may recall that when we debated that issue I said that I felt strongly—as I still do—that it would have been beneficial to everyone had the Committee sat in public as much as possible. The motion that we moved then was defeated, but I think that we shall have to consider issues such as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in the future, although I do not think it appropriate to discuss the matter in detail now.
All who served on the Committee overcame their initial disagreements about whether it should sit in public, and performed their work extremely well. My right hon. Friend was among them, and I commend the details of the report to him. Partly because of all that work and partly because the report is unanimous, I do not think that we should set it aside lightly. It shows very clearly that the case made against the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) was strong, and that it convinced all members of the Committee. The House must accept, as does the report and as the motion states, that the conduct of those two hon. Members
"fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members",
and that a formal reprimand and suspension must follow.
I know that concern exists among some of my hon. Friends, who believe that the sanctions to be imposed are not adequate in the circumstances. They will be able to make their own case, if, Madam Speaker, they are able to catch your eye later. I must admit that I have some sympathy for those who want equity of treatment—[Interruption.] I have some sympathy for those who want parity of treatment for the two Members, but I personally will be supporting the specific recommendations of the Privileges Committee, as in the resolutions.
I heard a Conservative Member ask about The Sunday Times. I endorse—again, I know that some of my hon. Friends will disagree—what the report says about The Sunday Times, but it is extremely important to stress that

355
criticism of The Sunday Times does not detract in any way from the seriousness of the charges against those Members who are the subject of the report.
Mr. Alan Duncan: If the hon. Lady is interested in equity, does she agree that the sanctions introduced in the report are inequitable in that they apply only to Members of the House, and not the newspaper that perpetrated the set-up in the first place?
Mrs. Taylor: The Members concerned have clearly breached the rules of the House. Those rules and the obligations that we have as Members of Parliament are serious. I support the Committee's overall conclusions, which is why I am happy to vote for the suspensions this evening.
I want to say a word about The Sunday Times. It obviously felt that it had a legitimate right to act as it did. It felt that because of information given to it by business men saying that Members of Parliament accepted payments for tabling questions. The Sunday Times would be treated more sympathetically and more seriously by many Members if it reported such matters and such individuals to the House so that any necessary action could be taken.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the fact that the original allegations made by the unnamed business man to The Sunday Times concerned four hon. Members, and that The Sunday Times chose deliberately not to pursue those four, but, allegedly, to take a random sample of 20? Does she agree that it would have been more appropriate for it to have pursued those four, if indeed they ever existed?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether it is appropriate for The Sunday Times to pursue those Members. It is important that, if any individual, inside the House or outside it, has any evidence whatsoever that any Member is breaching the rules, that evidence should be presented in the first instance to the House. That is a straightforward principle that should apply throughout.
Dame Jill Knight: Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that the four so-called Members who were not pursued in any way apparently still exist, and that The Sunday Times said that it knew who they were, throws a bad light on all hon. Members? None of us knows which four it is talking about.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady is right. Some questions are still unanswered. That fact, however, does not invalidate the report's findings and recommendations.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is not one of the problems with the House's recommendations the fact that the Press Complaints Commission has no sanctions to take against The Sunday Times? Unlike the British Medical Association, the Law Society, or even the Football Association, which can fine people, the commission has no sanctions, except to say, "Tut-tut," and to demand an apology. That is what it is going to do.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many wider issues to which we will have to return on some other occasions. Other issues surrounding the activities of the press will require greater consideration
356
over a long period of time, although some of the issues are not directly related to the cases that we are considering today. For example, the Privileges Committee report shows that there was deception by journalists, entrapment and bugging in the Palace of Westminster. We have seen similar techniques used to intrude into the private lives of hon. Members and others. Actions like that cannot be condoned.
I suggest that it is right to criticise the conduct of The Sunday Times in this instance as well as to criticise the conduct of the two hon. Members concerned who have now left the Chamber. We have many long-term lessons to learn from this unfortunate episode. We will shortly hear Lord Nolan's report, and the House will have a chance to draw its conclusions in respect of any changes that need to be made to our proceedings. The Privileges Committee report is extremely helpful to the House. The clarity of its recommendations is welcome and its suggestions should be supported by the House. I will vote for them this evening and I urge the House to do the same.
4.30 pm
Mr. John Biffen: These are unhappy occasions for the House of Commons. It is quite clear that my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have, as they said, committed errors of judgment. I might say that they were most breathtaking errors of judgment. However, ever since they have been Members of this House I have been pleased to operate with them as political colleagues. I must say that it is my experience that they have operated with total integrity. I have been pleased to call them hon. Friends, and that is my position this afternoon.
In what will be a very brief speech, I want to consider the broad issue, which is the extent to which outside interests either breach or conform with privilege. That is not something with which the House is particularly conversant. Most of our discussions hitherto have been to do with the reporting of Members' interests. Here we have an evaluation of that interest. As you said, Madam Speaker, you felt that there was an urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament. The Privileges Committee said that it was unable to fulfil that remit because the task that it already had was very considerable and there was the impending likelihood of the results of the Nolan report.
We have an attenuated report against what was originally supposed by many hon. Members. However, it was perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to complain that two hours is a ludicrously inadequate time to consider an issue of this moment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
"there is an agreement between the usual channels that the time allotted will be two hours".—[Official Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 28.]
I have not come here to be adversarial. However, we have ahead of us the Nolan and Scott reports, which will go to the very heart of what are proper relationships and conduct in this House of Commons. Whatever is agreed by the usual channels is not necessarily appropriate for what is a genuine House of Commons interest—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should stand up and say that I used not to say that. I have stood here

357
and I have stood at the Front Bench and I have conducted whatever task I had to conduct with a very lively commitment and interest in respect of the House of Commons generally.
I will not enter a discussion or make a judgment on what has been proposed in the report because my time is too short. None the less, I am much concerned about whether this Privileges Committee approach is the most appropriate for making judgments in these circumstances. I am talking not about privileges generally, but about privileges where they relate to the outside financial interest of members, as is the case in this instance. If Lloyd George said that war was too serious to be left to generals, the conduct and the investigation of these matters is too serious to be left merely to parliamentarians, however distinguished. I welcome the fact that Nolan is seeking to broaden the terms of consideration of these matters.
I should like to mention three areas in which the remit of a Committee which is investigating such matters could reasonably be widened. First, I have come to the conclusion—not initially, but certainly now—that the Committee should take evidence in public wherever that is practical. Secondly, inspired by Nolan, the Committee should go wider than the membership merely of Members of Parliament. Thirdly, those under investigation should have representation and a right of cross-examination.
I do not say for one moment that a Committee thus. constituted would have come to different conclusions in this instance—I do not make that judgment—but the whole issue of the missing tapes and the whole issue of the letter contained in appendix A, which has been the subject of an exchange earlier this afternoon, would take on a different context and would have helped the House to have made a more balanced judgment.
As this debate proceeds, and with Nolan it inevitably will, there will be a realisation that the legitimacy and the definition of outside interests will mean a clarity that is much more focused than is provided this afternoon. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I believe that, eventually, we will end up with a framework of law for considering such matters. I was very encouraged to hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) making that point on the radio this morning.
Sooner or later, such matters will not be sensibly resolved within the arcane and historic practices of this Chamber. They call for a different form of consideration, and the law is the most satisfactory, for at least there is the chance of equity being secured and there is the chance of the scales being held equally. There is not the likelihood of passing political climate being an oppressive factor in the judgment that is made of those under investigation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Biffen: No. I have said that I would be brief, and I hope to hold to the promise.
The House is at its best when it is trying to make equitable judgments and not fashion punishment.
4.37 pm
Mr. John Morris: I, too, shall be brief in commending the report of the Committee on which I
358
served—a unanimous report of the 17 Committee members. May I say two or three sentences on why it took us so long to produce it?
I regret that, in fairness to the three hon. Members and to the newspaper concerned, we were unable to sit when the House was in recess. The moment we were appointed, we sat until the very hour—3 o'clock—that the House went into recess. We were a large Committee of 17 members. Perhaps in future the House will want to consider whether membership should be smaller.
We were evenly balanced, and every effort was made by the authorities and by the Leader of the House to ensure that every Committee Member could attend. That was not easy. Every member of the Committee attended every sitting of the Committee. It was important, in view of the balance, that that was so. Perhaps in future a smaller Committee could dispense speedier justice and be empowered to sit in the recess.
We also lost some time because of the anxiety of many members of the Committee to sit in public to take evidence. I certainly regret that we did not do so. It might appear very odd to the outside world that Lord Nolan can hear evidence on matters that are not dissimilar to those that we heard, yet we decided not to sit in public. I hope that future Committees will bear in mind our experience and will carefully consider the dangers, if any, of not doing what Lord Nolan has seen fit to do—sitting in public.
I hope that I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee in saying that cross-examining colleagues was not a happy experience: I say no more than that. We took a very serious view, as the report shows, of the conduct of two hon. Members. We considered all precedents and adjudicated on—in my view and, more important, in the Committee's view—proper sentences of suspension, varying in length, and an additional formal reprimand in each case. The Committee found that the conduct of two colleagues fell below the standard expected of hon. Members. We recommend the finding to the House. I for one regard the reprimand as being of particular importance, as I am sure does the Committee as a whole.
We found that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) acted unwisely and that he committed an error of judgment. He was very frank, however, about his role and conduct, and his evidence epitomised the view that, I hope, right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would take. The hon. Gentleman was asked:
"If anyone offered you £1,000 for putting down a Parliamentary Question, whatever way it was dressed up as, either as a straight question or anything of that kind or any talk about a consultancy, you would, in your own mind, think it was a wrong thing to do?"
He replied:
"Yes, I do. I think it is very wrong."
That certainly gave me a great deal of assistance in confirming the view that all members of the Committee took of what the Leader of the House described a few moments ago.
It should not be forgotten that 17 other hon. Members had no truck with the proposal put to them, whatever the form of the proposal: not for one moment did they give it a moment's thought. In addition to the frank comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, that should sum up the reaction of all of us on the Committee.
I can speak only for myself about the way in which I distinguished between the punishments suggested for the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for

359
Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). We tried as best as we could to act fairly and judicially. It is for the House to decide whether we achieved that. I tried to draw as best as I could from knowledge of other fields as regards a person's manner and to what extent a person is entitled to some discount when he accepts responsibility, pleads guilty and asks for the mercy of the House.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty immediately in a debate in the House in July. He conceded three points: first, his lack of judgment; secondly, that it was unwise even to have considered—I emphasise those words—doing what was asked of him; and, thirdly, he apologised for the trouble caused. If he had left it there, he would been very much wiser. Unfortunately, he wrote a letter to the Committee as recently as 3 March. I hope—this matter was raised a little earlier—that right hon. and hon. Members will read that letter, which appears on page 182 in appendix 13.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley cannot have been advised to write as he did. If he was, it was very bad advice indeed. He expressed the following view:
"I wish to emphasise my strong belief that I was not in breach of Parliamentary privilege."
Unhappily, he has been found to be so.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster): May I put two' points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that letter? First, we must draw a distinction between my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) believing himself to be in breach of privilege and accepting that he had acted extremely foolishly. At that stage, he agreed to the latter, but not the former. The House has found otherwise. Secondly, in his letter my hon. Friend asked that the Committee see him again if it were minded to find him in breach of privilege. The Committee did not do so. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why?
Mr. Morris: The Committee certainly considered that matter. It is not for me to go further than what is set out in the report, but I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the letter was certainly considered, account was taken of the request and the view of the Committee was that the evidence that we had heard was adequate to reach a decision. That letter, which appears on page xxi of our report, was read very closely and that is why the Committee invited the House to put it into the balance. In my view—I may be wrong—I fear that that letter, taken as a whole, goes a long way to undermine the apology first tendered to the House. It was unwise—regrettably—that the hon. Member sent that letter.
We were then left—certainly as far as I was concerned—with the other point that could have mitigated any sentence proposed for the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman had concluded, before he was exposed, that the transaction was improper and he had returned the cheque at the earliest opportunity. In my judgment, although the offence itself was abundantly proved, as set out in our conclusions, the hon. Member was entitled to have those circumstances taken into account in mitigation of any penalty proposed. That was certainly how my mind worked in reaching the view that the hon. Gentleman's sentence should be less than that of the hon. Member for Bosworth.
360
We took the view that the conduct of The Sunday Times fell substantially below the standards expected of legitimate journalism. I have read many of the comments and leading articles and I suspect that all of them—at least all that I have read, although the list may not be complete—ignored the word "substantially", which was deliberately included in the Committee's report. That word was ignored and it was merely stated what we recommended and that we found that the newspaper's conduct fell below the standards expected. It fell substantially below the standard required and I wish that some comment had been made about that.
Sir Peter Tapsell: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on that point, will he explain to me and to the House how he reconciles the failure of the Committee-to insist on an answer from the editor of The Sunday Times to the questions that were put to him about revealing the name of the business man and the four hon. Members against whom the allegations were made, with the statement on page 160, paragraph 11 of the report? That states that the House resolved
"'That the refusal of a witness before a Select Committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of the House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest'".
It follows a paragraph that refers to episodes in August 1947, when journalists refused to answer such questions before the Committee and were summoned to the Bar of the House, publicly questioned by the Speaker in front of the entire House and forced to reveal the information and to give an apology. Why was that not done on this occasion?
Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Member would have wished to ask each and every one of the members of Committee that, from the Leader of the House down. I cannot go outside the matter before us; it would be wrong so to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because the Committee did not sit in public. Had the Committee sat in public, perhaps the answer sought by the hon. Gentleman would have been clear and apparent. I for one fought hard to ensure that the Committee sat in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That is my answer. In accordance with the resolution—
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way again.
In accordance with the resolution of the Committee, by which I am bound, I cannot go outside the terms of the report or reveal in any detail any particular discussion. I am sure that in saying that I would be supported by every member of the Committee.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: No. I shall not give way again; I want to finish my speech.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Morris: Yes.
Mr. Skinner: One of the intriguing aspects is the fact that if The Sunday Times had said to one of the Tory Members, "Here's £10,000 to be a consultant to The

361
Sunday Times," they would have been able to declare that in the Register of Members' Interests and ask questions all year long. About 200 Tory Members are consultants, advisers and directors.
Mr. David Shaw: How many Labour Members?
Mr. Skinner: The public outside will want to know why more than 500 jobs are allocated to more than 200 Members, mainly Tories. Some of them have 10 or 11 jobs each, yet nothing is done about it.
Mr. Shaw: How many Labour Members? How much did the hon. Gentleman's flat cost?
Mr. Skinner: If, as a result of the debate today, all those moonlighting jobs are excluded, we shall have done the country a service—one Member of Parliament, one job.
Mr. Shaw: How much did the union pay for the hon. Gentleman's flat?
Mr. Skinner: Do not be daft.
Mr. Morris: If I may be allowed to continue, Madam Speaker, I can tell my hon. Friend that he has made his point. I am sure that he will want to read the report most carefully.
We were cognisant of the fact that Lord Nolan will cover some of the matters concerned. Secondly, in accordance with your more general remit, Madam Speaker, which goes wider than the particular conduct of the three Members and the newspaper, we intend to return to those matters in due course when Lord Nolan has reported. I am sure that the Committee will wish to consider some of the matters raised in my hon. Friend's intervention.
Mr. Bill Michie: May I re-emphasise the fact that on more than one occasion the Committee discussed the problem of whether to sit in private or in public? If everything had been done in public, the questions being asked of my right hon. and learned Friend would have been irrelevant. One cannot ask more of some of the members, including my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrat member, than that they plead with the Committee to sit in public. The Nolan committee was sitting in public, there was suspicion and we claimed transparency, yet still that did not happen. Given that it was forced to sit in private, members of the Committee should not be blamed for not having reached the right decision, and people should not say that we are not prepared to make the right statement.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I said earlier.
I want to bring my remarks to a close. Before I gave way, I was saying that the word "substantially" as applied by the report to The Sunday Times had been ignored. Of course The Sunday Times caught the fish in question, based on a line of inquiry emanating from the observations of an unknown business man. The House may wish to pass further comment as to whether the agreement between The Sunday Times and the business man should have been reached at all, and to develop that subject further.
362
Following those events, if our recommendations are accepted, the two Members are to be punished. They were caught through entrapment. Nothing was known against the 20 Members that The Sunday Times tried to seduce. Two happened to be caught with the bait, yet although five and a half months had passed between the business man's tip and the start of The Sunday Times inquiry, no evidence was found about any other Member. The newspaper went back to other sources, asking business men and people concerned with public relations, yet no evidence other than rumour was discovered. The Sunday Times told us that, by the terms of the agreement, it was forbidden to investigate the four names that the business man had given it. Two of our colleagues were caught by the bait.
I suspect that if a policeman had used the methods employed by The Sunday Times, shock and horror would have been expressed in leading articles in more than one newspaper. An agent provocateur, according to the recent royal commission, is one who
"entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed".
The agent provocateur has been disapproved of over the years by judges, even though the fact that a person would not have committed the offence had it not been for the activities of the agent provocateur is no defence in English law. Entrapment through deception should be disapproved of, and I echo that sentiment. The taking of clandestine recordings within the precincts of the House may well undermine the bond of trust built up over the years between Members of Parliament and the lobby. That bond acts as a lubricant to ensure that news reaches the public under many guises. We all value it. I join in placing our report before the House for its earnest consideration.
4.55 pm
Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking): I am conscious that you want us to be brief, Madam Speaker, and although a lot has been said on which I would like to comment, I shall forbear. I simply say that tribute should be paid to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his patience and skill in chairing the Committee. We found ourselves in a most unhappy situation, with a most disagreeable duty to perform.
I shall confine the rest of my speech to the conduct of The Sunday Times Insight team and its editor. I shall take as my text the editorial that appeared in that newspaper on 9 April under the headline, "Don't shoot the messenger". It set its own tone at the beginning, by saying:
"The whingeing of a small rump of Tory MPs last week over the outcome of the cash-for-questions affair made a sad spectacle."
It continued by saying that Members of Parliament, "predictably", had
"sought to muddy the waters with complaints about entrapment and agents provocateurs.
It was fitting, then, that the verdict on the affair came not from us, but from their fellow MPs",
from a body that the editorial described as
"The privileges committee, a self-regulating cross-party body".
I am sure that many colleagues will have read that editorial, and will have shared my surprise that it did not say that the Privileges Committee report specifically found that there was entrapment. The right hon. and

363
learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has endorsed that fact, and it is not to the credit of The Sunday Times that it suppressed it.
In the 1,000 or fewer words of the editorial I find more cause to take offence at the newspaper's reaction, and at the considered and careful self-justification that The Sunday Times has inflicted on its readers. The editorial refers to
"the practice of MPs accepting money for putting down parliamentary questions",
and the newspaper's anonymous business man sought to persuade its readers that that was a common practice.
Anyone who reads the evidence that the Committee attaches to its report will see that there is no support whatever for the proposition that that is a common practice. Indeed, when Mr. Witherow was forced into a corner under examination, he was obliged to admit that all the research that The Sunday Times had carried out with its computer proved nothing of the sort.
However, in spite of our findings, the fiction is still maintained. I find it most regrettable that that respectable newspaper should have brought a stinking mess to the door of the House of Commons and then refused to help the Privileges Committee to clear it up.
The editorial goes on to state that
"our reporters and editor freely gave evidence"
to the Privileges Committee—"up to a point, Lord Copper", as Evelyn Waugh said. Anyone reading the evidence will see the stubborn refusal of the editor and his colleagues to help the Committee by identifying the alleged anonymous source. When pressed on the matter, witnesses took refuge behind the journalistic equivalent of the fifth amendment. I have sympathy with the anger that has been expressed about that point.
I must also point out that the editorial makes no mention of the Committee's conclusion that the agreement between The Sunday Times and the business man that prevented investigation of allegations against the four Members was not in the public interest. That, too, was carefully suppressed. The editorial claimed that the actions of The Sunday Times
"have now been investigated by both the privileges committee and the newspaper industry's own watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission."
The editorial states that the PCC is chaired by Lord Wakeham, a former Conservative Minister. There is no doubt that an inference is meant to be drawn from that statement. However, it is misleading as, at the material time, Lord Wakeham was not chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. That is, at the least, an example of gross carelessness by The Sunday Times.
Although we concluded in the report that the Press Complaints Commission should be invited to reconsider the matter again in the light of the evidence that we took, there is no mention of that in the editorial. I find that surprising, given the movement in the evidence of the editor when he appeared before us and his statement in a letter to the PCC on 13 July. I find it difficult to conclude that this is not another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the PCC and the public.
The conclusion of the editorial refers to the
"urgent task of rebuilding public confidence in MPs and in parliament itself."
364
We would all endorse that, and we hope that Lord Nolan's report will contribute to that task. There is no mention in The Sunday Times of the damage that has been done to the reputation of Parliament by its editor. That may be too much to expect from an editor who recently lent his columns to an attempt to assassinate the character and reputation of Michael Foot.
Journalists on The Sunday Times—including Michael Jones, a respected lobby correspondent—will no doubt claim an important part in rehabilitating the reputation of the House. I regard the editorial that The Sunday Times printed on 9 April as nothing more than the editor pouring a bucket of whitewash over himself. He may feel that he and his colleagues in this miserable business deserve our praise and congratulations. No one reading the evidence and the report could possibly share that view.
5.4 pm
Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) spoke for all members of the Committee in his remarks regarding the four Members whose identities were consistently concealed by The Sunday Times during the information that it gave to the Committee. I concur with what he said in that regard.
At the outset, may I commend the motion that is before the House to all Members? May I also thank the Leader of the House for the scrupulously fair way in which he dealt with the inquiry and the way in which he conducted the proceedings of the Committee? It would have been to the advantage of Parliament if the public could have seen those proceedings. If they had seen the fair way in which the Committee conducted the inquiry, it would have done a great deal to restore the reputation of Parliament. I agree with what the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), said on that matter.
The Committee has painstakingly discharged its responsibilities both to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House. I believe that hon. Members would be most unwise to begin to unravel the carefully constructed series of recommendations. The duties of the Committee were twofold. First, to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing by two hon. Members and the methods used by The Sunday Times in gathering the information. Secondly, we had to consider the damage which undoubtedly has been done to Parliament and its reputation, and to see how our procedures might be changed to minimise the risk of a repetition.
The report inevitably deals only with the first part of that remit. The Committee must now go on to consider the referral by the House of Peter Preston and The Guardian, and then to examine the guidelines for future conduct. The Committee will also want to draw on Lord Nolan's recommendations.
What may be usefully said at this stage? First, I would like to refer to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House, or by the hon. Members themselves, that they fell below the standards which the House has a right to expect of us all. It is right that they should be formally reprimanded.
I also think that it is right that we recognise the degree of culpability involved. That is what the motion seeks to do, by, in one case, talking about 10 days and, in the other

365
case, talking of 20 days. The Committee came to that conclusion because there was an initial apology, although the subsequent letter did not help in case of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) suggested that it was the sort of letter a solicitor might have recommended. I would sack a solicitor who made that recommendation to me if I were his client. To send a letter to members of the Committee at that stage did nothing to assist the hon. Gentleman's case, but the fact remains that the hon. Gentleman returned the cheque and apologised to the House. There is a question of degree which the House must recognise.
Amendments before us seek to expel the two Members concerned. This fails to recognise—as members of the public may do—the seriousness of what will happen to the two hon. Members. Both of them were parliamentary private secretaries, and both may well have aspired to become Ministers. They are surely now in a position where their careers have been gravely damaged and probably endangered beyond repair. The former hon. Member for Winchester, John Browne, faced deselection as a result of a similar decision by the House, and there is no doubt that the seriousness and gravity of what the House may decide to do today in the case of the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth will have profound effects on them in their constituencies.
It is a draconian measure to place the sanction of expulsion in the hands of the majority against what may appear to be a troublesome minority, and all hon. Members must think carefully about the use of such a weapon, which may one day be used in other circumstances—perhaps against them. Expulsion is a sanction that should be used by the electors and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to use it in this case.
I turn now to the case of The Sunday Times. Where allegations of financial corruption are involved, the right to subterfuge must be a legitimate weapon for any newspaper to have in its armoury. But there are ways in which that may be used. All of us feel uneasy about the breakdown in relations which has occurred between journalists and hon. Members as a result of people using concealed tape recorders when they come to talk to Members of Parliament.
It was unwise for The Sunday Times to enter into an agreement with its source—although no one would expect it to reveal the name of that source—not to reveal the names of the four Members of Parliament against whom the original allegations were made. That leaves a slur over every Member of Parliament, and those Members ought to have been brought to book. It also ought to be remembered that 17 of the 20 hon. Members who were originally approached refused to have anything to do with the plan whatsoever. That reflects well on the vast majority of Members of the House.
Mr. Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of the other place stated to the Financial Times that four Members of Parliament had taken cash for questions? I complained—as did Madam Speaker—that that Member of the upper House should be brought to the Bar of this House and forced to name the four Members.
I understand that that Member of the upper House is a lawyer and a Queen's Counsel who has acted for Mohamed Al Fayed. The obvious implication, although we have no evidence to prove it, is that the same four people who were displayed in The Sunday Times are those
366
that Mr. Al Fayed seeks to name. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that the accusation by Mr. Al Fayed and Lord Lester is true.
Mr. Alton: There are two points here. The first concerns my hon. Friend, Lord Lester. I made it absolutely clear when he made his allegation that it would have been better if he had said who those allegations were being made against. So my view about Lord Lester is precisely the same as it is about The Sunday Times. The second point is about Mohamed Al Fayed. Members of the Privileges Committee—this is not a matter of secrecy because we have motions before the Committee—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: They are in the minutes of evidence.
Mr. Alton: As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says, the issue is referred to in the minutes of evidence. Members of the Privileges Committee will have a chance to vote on a motion that I tabled requiring Mr. Al Fayed to come before the Committee during the next round of our proceedings, when Mr. Peter Preston of The Guardian is brought before us. I hope that every member of the Committee will vote for that motion so that the questions that have just been raised can be put to Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed and we can get to the truth of this matter once and for all.
The second matter that I wanted to discuss briefly is the damage to Parliament's collective reputation. The issue of lobbying came out in the minutes of evidence, where it was revealed that one of the hon. Members concerned received £12,000 a year from the Brewers Society to act on its behalf. Hon. Members must ask themselves what is the moral or practical difference between receiving £12,000 a year to act on behalf of an outside lobbyist, vested interest or commercial group and receive £12,000 during the course of a year to table,say, 12 parliamentary questions, and receiving £1,000 for tabling one parliamentary question. We shall have to look at that general issue in much greater detail, as we will at the transparency of the Register of Members' Interests. There is no compulsion to reveal in the register the details of the £12,000 to which I just alluded and it is high time that there was such a compulsion.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only was £12,000 paid for a consultancy but that, before the hon. Member concerned would reveal how much it was, he said, "Only a small amount"? If £12,000 is a small amount, goodness knows what is happening.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well. The fact was that the hon. Member was not prepared to admit how much money he had received. That should be a matter of public declaration as everyone has a right to know.
It is impossible for parliamentarians to serve two masters. We are elected to serve our constituents and our consciences. We are here to pursue causes and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is here to pursue anything other than a cause. People who are here to pursue vested interests place themselves in an impossible position; we should sever that umbilical cord.
At the very minimum, Parliament should consider requiring all candidates at parliamentary elections to state, in the literature that is delivered free by the Post Office to the homes of all their constituents, details of their

367
declarations of financial interests so that every elector knows precisely who those candidates seek to serve. Secondly, if a Minister resigns or retires from ministerial office, there should be a firebreak between the time that he or she has been in that office and the time at which he or she takes up subsequent financial interests.
Thirdly, we should consider the issue of self regulation. There is a case for an outside body on ethics in public life and penalties should be much tougher. It should be a criminal offence to try to bribe a Member of Parliament, which in many respects would deal with the problem that we have had to face in this case.
There is also a case for much more openness in our proceedings. I was one of those who supported holding the proceedings of the Privileges Committee in public. Everything that has occurred during the course of those proceedings confirms the view that I put, along with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and many others, when those matters were first considered. We said that it would be better for all of us if the issue were dealt with in the open rather than hidden away because that would only add to the impression held by people outside that we are looking after our own privileges and interests rather than their interests.
This whole sorry business has been a tragedy for all involved, and the sooner it is put behind us the better it will be—so long as lessons have been learnt.
5.14 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) ruled out the option of the sanction of expulsion that has been tabled as an amendment. I wish to go further in the opposite direction and put on record how mistaken—indeed, unfair—I believe the Privileges Committee has been in recommending so severe a penalty as suspension with incidental loss of salary for my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
The effect of indictment against my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, whose case I am particularly anxious to support, is contained in paragraph 51 of the report before us, where my hon. Friend is charged with
"a serious error of judgement".
I do not dissent from that verdict, as it was a serious error of judgment and my hon. Friend has admitted as much, but we must put that error of judgment in a reasonable perspective.
As we all know, the background to the case was the efforts of The Sunday Times to establish a close and crude cash-for-questions nexus—the alleged going rate of a thousand quid a question. But it is clear from the delphic and convoluted proposals which Mr. Calvert made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth that he could not bring himself to pop the question crudely, directly and immediately as to whether my hon. Friend would be prepared to table a question for £1,000. It had to be dressed up in such a way as to lead my hon. Friend to believe that he was being offered a down payment for an on-going consultancy.
I admit that that may have been an error of judgment, but I ask the House to recognise that, if the tape recording which Mr. Calvert carried away from his encounter with
368
my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth had been of a crude question as to whether he would accept £1,000 to table a question, and if the tape in that form had fallen into the hands of the Privileges Committee, its verdict would probably have been not that it was a serious error of judgment but that that practice was gross and unacceptable. The Committee did not find that in its verdict, which was based on the clear impression which my hon. Friend received and conveyed in his exchanges with the Committee: that he was being offered something much less crude, draconian, immediate and limited than £1,000 to ask the question.
Under those circumstances, how much more reasonable is it that colleagues might make an error of judgment? [Interruption.] I do not conceal that it was an error of judgment, but I believe that The Sunday Times, by means of an elaborate, deliberate and technically adroit conspiracy to deceive my hon. Friend, had to establish that he was prepared to take £1,000 for asking a question. It could not, under any circumstances, allow the proposition to be dressed up in so crude a form because it knew that, had my hon. Friend been placed in that position, he would almost immediately have said, "You can't be serious. A thousand quid to ask one question?" [Laughter.] In spite of the mirth of Opposition Members, who do not take the approach that one might be considered innocent before one is proved guilty or that there might have been a genuine misunderstanding, which is exactly what the Privileges Committee has concluded, my hon. Friend would not have responded so crudely to such a crude offer.
Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend will have heard the mirth of Opposition Members, who always exclaim that they are looking after those who are underprivileged. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have set up rules to protect the public from agents provocateur that would never allow the evidence in the matter that we are discussing to be given and used in any way in a court of law? Why should Members of the House be treated any differently from the ordinary people whom they always try to protect? They seem to care; they do not care a damn.
Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has made a fair and reasonable argument.
I return to the essential evidence that the House has to consider—that the verdict of the Committee of Privileges is that what has been found as a fault is a serious error of judgment, not a crude and unacceptable practice. As a serious error of judgment—a limited, but serious fault—I do not believe that it is reasonable, especially in view of the fact that the Committee of Privileges began that consideration as long ago as July of last year, and we are now reaching a conclusion on this case, nearly a year later, that in the light of the indictment that we have levelled at my hon. Friend, it is now fair, nearly 12 months later, to produce a full and unmodified verdict of suspension.
To use an analogy, in many criminal cases—this case is obviously entirely non-criminal—outside the House, where someone has been put on remand against the suspicion that a crime may have been committed, when a sentence is passed, consideration is given to the lapse of time that the individual has already suffered as a penalty in prison. I believe that it is right that the House should take into consideration the fact that my two hon. Friends

369
have had to wait nearly 12 months—[Interruption.]—against the background of suspicion and accusation, to await the verdict of the House. It is reasonable, under those circumstances, that the original indictment should be modified in terms of the penalty that is envisaged, and that we should reduce it to a simple, straight reprimand.
Mr. John Garrett: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that, if his hon. Friends had been offered what he calls an ongoing consultancy, under the terms of which they would have been able, or required, to ask a series of parliamentary questions at £1,000 a time, it would have been perfectly satisfactory? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members must control themselves.
Mr. Alison: In response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that would have been a serious error of judgment in my book. However, I do not believe that one can evaluate and make a judgment about what any other hon. Member might take the offer to be until the full offer and all the implications have been fully and properly spelt out, which they obviously had not been in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is guilty of a serious error of judgment; no more than that. He has had to wait for nearly 12 months, with all the uncertainty and pain that that causes. Now that we are delivering the verdict, it is appropriate that we should reduce the penalty, make it a straight reprimand and give him the same fairness that the courts, at the behest of the House, give to prisoners who have been placed on remand and have had to suffer a long time in prison before their sentence is delivered. Let us reduce the sentence and make it a straight reprimand.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next right hon. Gentleman, I point out that it is a very short debate and a very serious one. Many right hon. and hon. Members are hoping to speak, and even 10–minute speeches are too long in this particular case.
5.23 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I wonder whether the House realises the real problem that faces it, which is not two Members who can be disposed of. We have no standards; that is the problem. We talk about Members falling below the standards expected—what are the standards expected? Is it that marvellous phrase, "conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman"? Is that what they mean by standards? What are the standards? The House has no standards. Until we have standards—and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) endorsed the idea that I suggested about the legal position—we are in difficulty.
The Committee talks about investigative journalism falling below the standard expected. I did not think that anyone could be below the standard of investigative journalism of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Have other Members experienced conduct far worse than that? I certainly have.
The Committee of Privileges met in secret. It did not want anyone to know what it was discussing. The fact that it is an unanimous report made my hair stand on end. Is there no difference between the two sides of the House
370
on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? Is there no difference? Was there no opportunity for someone to argue that the standards should be this or that? It was not mentioned at all.
I cannot vote for the report. I shall not vote against it, but I shall not vote for the report because it does not tackle the real question, which is, what should the standards be that we impose—I believe that it should be by law—on Members of Parliament?
The Nolan committee has been mentioned. I gave evidence to Nolan, because we must take our opportunities when they arise. But what the Prime Minister did was to take the matter out of the House of Commons by using the royal prerogative—which gives him the power to set up a commission—and thereby degut the Committee of Privileges, and then Nolan actually heard evidence in public.
I am not a bit interested—as I said from the beginning—in the two hon. Members. A newspaper lied, they fell for the bait and the trouble that was caused for them has already been caused by what has happened. So I have never been in favour of pursuing the two hon. Members—I have said that very many times. But I am interested in knowing what Members of the Committee of Privileges said to one another about standards.
I wanted the report of the debate to be public. I wanted to hear what hon. Gentlemen said, because that is what is of value. We are told that there was unanimous support. There is a theory that, if a thing is unanimous, it must be better. I have never believed that; otherwise we would not have debates and votes in the House. We must offer people a choice. That is the argument that I want to make.
It should be straightforward. Certain things should be legal and certain things should be illegal. I said this in the House—if I pay someone to vote for me in an election, I am guilty of an offence, I am taken to the election court and I may be unseated. We should have similar rules about the work of Members of Parliament.
It is not the moment to discuss what the standards should be, because I promised to speak for two or three minutes, but if the House thinks that it can solve the problem by holding a two-hour debate by agreement between the usual channels, it is an outrage. The matter is of great importance, and it is not about protecting Parliament.
I am not here to protect Parliament. It is not a club that I have joined, which I wish to protect. I am here to protect my constituents, and I want Parliament to ensure, as best it can, that it serves my constituents. The whole thing is the most ghastly whitewash and cover-up of the real question. Until we tackle the real question and put it on a legal basis, we can go on—
Sir David Mitchell rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised to sit down after three minutes and I shall do that.
We should tackle the real question; we should not leave it to Nolan. I am very disappointed that the Privileges Committee unanimously agreed about something that never really tackled the question.
As for the two hon. Members, I am not a bit interested in them because I think that they have done themselves about as much damage as any two Members could have done by their conduct.
5.28 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: In following the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I respect his opinions about those matters. I also recognise the amount of time that it took to get the Privileges Committee on the go, in view of the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to our sitting in private. I think that if we sit in private on that matter—or in public in future—we must ensure that proper provision is made for Members to have the type of assistance that is necessary in a normal court of law.
I do not think that anyone on the Committee of Privileges enjoyed the task that was allotted to us by the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he steadied our affairs along.
I wish to add three simple arguments to what has been said. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) came first to the House to apologise clearly for what had occurred in relation to what he considered to be falling below the standards of the House. We accepted that then and we accept it now. I am proud to call him my hon. Friend and I look forward to canvassing in his constituency at the next election on his behalf, if he wishes. Having gone that far, it is important that the Committee should be able to set out clearly what it was that occurred and how that apology—if I may put it that way—was rightly earned. But difficulties arose from it.
Throughout the procedures, we have been dealing, not with an ordinary course of accident, deliberate fraud or someone deliberately flouting the rules of the House, but an elaborate entrapment procedure that caught the Members in the net. I fully supported the report, and if I earn the displeasure of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for so doing, that will give me a touch of credibility. But the fact that we were unable to find a suitable way of dealing with the activities of The Sunday Times is a matter of great personal regret. I recognise that the Committee was wise in trying to avoid the electric scenes of people coming to the Bar of the House. Such scenes would have created more joy and happiness among the press than a more rational and orthodox way of dealing with the matter. However, that issue has to addressed.
A reference has been made to the Press Complaints Commission. A clear sign has been given that such journalism, with professional and well-trained journalists becoming liars for the week, is not acceptable. We must find a way of dealing with that problem to restore the relationship between Members of Parliament and the press, who seek to get whatever evidence they can from us, on whatever issue, to increase the circulation of their newspapers. It is crucial that we address that matter quickly.
The episode has taught us all a lot. I sincerely hope that the House of Commons will regain its self-respect by not trying to elaborate on the problems that it has faced. It must recognise that there was a most unusual series of events caused by an extraneous force trying to find proof of an allegation. The newspaper was unable to find any evidence in support of the allegations against the four Members and the tabling of questions. After six months of computer analysis not a shred of evidence was found, and the matter should have been stopped there. The newspaper should have known that.
5.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I support the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges regarding the two Members. I believe that the recommendation is sound and I shall vote for it in the Division, if there is one.
I do not agree with the strictures on The Sunday Times. It may be a minority view, but it is only right that another view should be advanced regarding The Sunday Times. Conservative Members have spoken in the debate as though the newspaper were in the dock, as though what it did was wrong and there was no public or legitimate interest involved. That view is clearly strongly held by Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends—I understand and accept that. But it is not held strongly, if at all, outside the House.
It is interesting that, apart from the Press Complaints Commission, which upheld and justified what had been done, few comments have been made outside the newspaper world along the lines that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and others—that what was done was wrong. Like other hon. Members, I read the evidence carefully. Leaving aside the issue of what The Sunday Times said in justification—about what it was told by a prominent business man about four Members of Parliament—if that newspaper came to the view that some hon. Members were tabling questions for money, what should it have done about that?
It could have dropped the investigation and said that there was no way that it could find out the facts. As the editor of The Sunday Times said in evidence, a newspaper reporter could have phoned up the hon. Members, but he went on to ask, what good would that have done? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his evidence that, if he had been asked by a reporter whether he would take cash for questions, he would have given the answer that one would expect: no. No Member of Parliament, if phoned by a journalist, would give any other answer.
The Sunday Times therefore decided that there was likely to be some justification in the rumours that were circulating and set about its job accordingly. If, ultimately, The Sunday Times investigation had been carried out and found that no hon. Member was willing to take up its offer, we could all be proud of that. We could justify criticism of The Sunday Times and say that what it did was totally without justification. But surely the reason for today's debate is that The Sunday Times found two Members who—the Committee of Privileges has decided—acted wrongly. The two hon. Members involved have apologised for acting wrongly. However much of a minority view it is, I cannot see why The Sunday Times should be taken to task for carrying out an investigation that it believed to be in the public interest and that was justified by the Press Complaints Commission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Winnick: I normally give way, but Conservative Members will have to forgive me if I do not give way now. Unfortunately, the debate is confined to just two hours and there is great pressure on time.
It gives me some satisfaction that, of the 20 Members who were contacted, at most three were found to be worthy of investigation—about one of whom the Privileges Committee came to another conclusion. It

373
should give us some satisfaction that the large majority of those contacted would not be involved and made that clear to those who rang them.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has rules about the declaration of interest when Members are speaking. If an hon. Member speaks in defence of a newspaper, should he not declare that in the Register of Members' Interests he declares payment by The Guardian and other fees from the media—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) does?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right hon. and hon. Members know the rules and it is up to each individual hon. Member to act as he thinks fit.
Mr. Winnick: Having had one article published in The Guardian, I went out of my way to ring up the Clerk of the Committee to ask whether, in view of my position in relation to The Guardian newspaper—which we are not debating today—I should declare my interest. The advice that I received was that it was not necessary to declare my interest in a newspaper as such. I went out of my way to put that entry in the register and I believe that I was justified in doing so. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Winnick: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I think that the gist of his argument was that, in defending his constituents, he was concerned about standards in the House. We are not concerned simply about ourselves; we are concerned about the maintenance of parliamentary democracy. If there is a general feeling that we are all on the make and there is sleaze everywhere, people lose confidence in this place and in the democratic process. That is against our interests.
There has rightly been a great deal of criticism about some of the ways in which newspapers, without justification, have made allegations and published stories about the private lives of hon. Members, whether Conservative or Opposition Members. Only two weeks ago there was a disgraceful story about a Conservative Member that could not possibly involve public interest. Indeed, the newspaper did not try to maintain that there was a public interest element.
We condemn trivial rubbish, for which we know there is no justification, and which is published in tabloids for the most obvious of reasons and, unfortunately, taken up by the serious press. But we must make a distinction between sensational tabloid material that has no public interest and legitimate matters in the public interest—which was what The Sunday Times, justifiably, was trying to find out about. The Sunday Times was trying to discover whether hon. Members were willing to take cash for questions. That was a legitimate investigation and in the public interest, so I hold that there is no justification for taking The Sunday Times to task.
5.40 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I have tabled the amendment in my name and in that of my hon. Friends because I believe that the punishment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) should be reduced to a reprimand. The Privileges Committee's report about my hon. Friend bases its case on a single
374
distinction—the distinction between being paid for a question and tabling a question as part of a paid consultancy arrangement. That is implicit when it rightly says that there can be no distinction between being paid for tabling a question and a consultancy arrangement that only involves tabling a question.
I know that I am not alone in my view. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House wonder whether there can be such a clear distinction. However, the Committee had no choice but to make that distinction, because it has been accepted according to long-established precedent that hon. Members on both sides of the House have interests about which questions have been tabled from time to time. I have not done that myself, but I am raising no objection now to that practice.
If we accept that premise—I think that there are good reasons for wondering whether it is a sound one—we must then ask what are the facts of the case involving my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. Did he or did he not think that he was tabling a question as part of a consultancy arrangement? The original meeting at which the arrangement was made took place on the Terrace of the House. Quite conveniently, it is the only conversation of which The Sunday Times has failed to produce a tape recording.
We know that The Sunday Times journalist concerned, Mr. Calvert, alleged initially that the meeting took only five minutes. Upon cross-examination by the Committee, he subsequently admitted that it could have taken half an hour. In such circumstances, I wonder how much weight should have been given to his testimony in my hon. Friend's case.
I shall shorten my case, as my time is limited. It has been alleged that my hon. Friend smelt a rat when he sent back the cheque. In fact, he carried out research first, not, as some hon. Members appear to believe, after he had received the cheque or after he had tabled the question. The hon. Gentleman did exactly what I would have done if, as a former business man, I were assisting a consultancy—although I would not have tabled a question. He went to Companies House to gather information about the company concerned. When I worked on takeover bids before my election to the House, I would begin my investigations at that point.
My hon. Friend agreed to table a question—that is the only point at which I disagree with his actions. I would not have tabled a question if I had a consultancy arrangement with a company—as many other hon. Members who have consultancy arrangements with businesses or trade unions have agreed to do in the past. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see justice done and we are currently considering an issue of individual justice.
A cheque subsequently arrived through the post and appended to it was the note, "Your payment for tabling a question." Although there had been an initial half-hour discussion about a consultancy arrangement, it was at that point that my hon. Friend realised that it was not a consultancy arrangement: it involved simply tabling a question. Within an hour or two, he put the cheque back in the post—long before anything was exposed.
My hon. Friend has admitted to an error of judgment, and I think that he made such an error. However, I believe that he is a man of the highest integrity and I am proud

375
that he is one of my colleagues. It is unbelievable that the Privileges Committee should propose to suspend him for 10 days over this matter.
I feel bound to put one final comment on the record. I have been a Member of Parliament for less than eight years and, as such, I do not expect my views to carry much weight. However, I was astonished that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is the Chairman of the Committee, did not give us any guidance about the substance of the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. I could not help contrasting his actions with the short speech that my noble Friend Lord Howe delivered in the much more grievous case involving the former Member for Winchester. In a few succinct sentences, Lord Howe gave the House clear guidance as to the substance of that case.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had difficulty giving guidance about the substance of the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, because there is no substance to that case. I urge all hon. Members to support my amendment.
5.44 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I tabled the amendment which appears on the Order Paper because I do not believe that the Privileges Committee's recommendations are strong enough. However, I will back the Committee's recommendations if my proposals do not receive the support of the House. I will certainly support the Committee's recommendations against the other amendments which have been tabled today which suggest that at least one, if not both, of the hon. Gentlemen involved should be let off.
On 13 July last year when we debated the issue, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that tampering, for whatever motive, with the right to ask questions should be dealt with severely by Parliament. I agree entirely with his comments. However, it is not simply a question of journalists or members of the public tampering with parliamentary procedure. As Members of Parliament, we should ensure that we do not tamper with or undermine the credibility of the tabling of parliamentary questions. I believe that the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have tampered with our right to ask questions in the Chamber, and I agree that they should be dealt with severely.
When we table questions in the House, at public expense, people in the community should be confident that we do so as part of our duty as Members of Parliament and not in order to receive a fee. I am particularly concerned about the nature of the apology that the hon. Member for Colne Valley made to the House on 13 July last year. If hon. Members look closely at the letter submitted to the Privileges Committee by the hon. Gentleman on 3 March, they will see that he seems virtually to renounce his initial apology to the House. The letter states:
"I wish to emphasise my strong belief that I was not in breach of Parliamentary privilege."
376
The hon. Gentleman puts up a robust defence of his actions and says:
"A possible breach of privilege could only have occurred if I knowingly agreed to table a question in return for money. This I totally refute."
On 13 July last year, the hon. Gentleman said:
"I accept that I made an error of judgment in agreeing to table a question and in agreeing initially to accept a fee".—[Official Report, 13 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1026.]
There is no reason why the two hon. Gentlemen should be treated differently as result of what happened on the Terrace of the House or in the parliamentary precincts.
Outside the House, the hon. Member for Colne Valley is telling another story. He recently gave an interview to the Huddersfield Daily Examiner and the article stated that he was
"relieved that the Committee did not say he was in breach of privilege, nor that he was in contempt of Parliament".
I do not believe that that is true. We are discussing the issue today because the Privileges Committee believes that the hon. Gentleman was in breach of the privileges that we enjoy as Members of Parliament. I believe that the electorate, and not necessarily the Parliament, should decide the future of the two hon. Gentlemen. The Nolan committee may reflect on whether we should sit in our own judgment in the future.
No talk about set-ups or secret taping by journalists, and no cries of underhanded tactics or entrapment, can justify the hon. Gentlemen's decisions to accept payment for tabling parliamentary questions. I do not defend the actions of the journalists concerned; I think that they were wrong. However, I defend the actions of those Members of Parliament on either side of the House who were also approached by journalists. Six Labour Members and four Conservative Members refused to table questions for a fee.
The hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth also had that option, but they did not say no. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members would refuse to table questions for a fee and, on that basis, I believe that the two hon. Gentlemen deserve the punishment which will be meted out to them today.
5.48 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I shall comment briefly on the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate today has accepted that it is wrong to receive money in return for tabling questions. That principle was also accepted in the generous apologies of my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) with regard to this matter.
Beyond that, it is absolutely right that the House should debate our future conduct and that rules, Members' interests and so on should currently be a matter for the Nolan committee.
The motion is not even-handed. Recently, there have been several instances of the decline in the standards of modern journalism in The Sunday Times, The Guardian and others. They work on the principle that the ends will justify practically any means.
One has only to look at the report. It found that
"the Sunday Times' conduct of its enquiries fell substantially below the standards to be expected of legitimate investigative journalism."

377
It also stated:
"the taking of clandestine recordings is manifestly a contempt the House."
Another phrase leaps off the page:
"This was clearly a form of entrapment through deception."
One Opposition Member used the word "seduction".
Sir Michael Marshall: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware of my concern, as I feel some responsibility for referring journalists to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Will he take into account two considerations? The first is the repeated use of the suggestion that a constituent had put the journalist in touch with the Members of Parliament concerned, and the second, which perhaps is not clear in the report, was the journalist's claim to be a friend of many Members of Parliament, including myself, which clearly influenced strongly the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend's points are absolutely valid. It was not only a deception, but a deception planned in the most infinite detail by the journalist involved and based on a tissue of lies. We are asked to believe a theory that is based on evidence of people who have not been named—the men who never were. The report is redolent with observations and conclusions on the conduct of The Sunday Times.
In principle, I support the Committee's conclusions on the penalties on my hon. Friends, but only if an equivalent penalty is imposed on the newspaper involved. I see no reason why such sanctions should apply to my two hon. Friends, but not also to the newspaper, and that is why my amendment calls for journalists working for The Sunday Times to have their Lobby passes withdrawn for a period of 20 days.
It may assist the House to know that I do not intend formally to move the amendment standing in my name, but on that basis I cannot support the main motion on the Order Paper.
5.52 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The references to The Sunday Times have been wide and varied, but there have been few references to the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, which are non-existent.
In the past three years we have considered the Calcutt report and the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion, which dealt with the antics of the press. We have also seen what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was spending on his credit card flashed across the papers, Princess Di having intrusive cameras in the gymnasium and the royal family's telephones being bugged. The growth of electronic surveillance is totally out of control.
Even since the publication of the report, there was the incident reported in the News of the World two weeks ago. A woman had a tape recorder in her handbag when she met a Conservative Member of Parliament. Every word was recorded and splashed across the newspapers. There are no ground rules and no controls. There have been recommendations from the Calcutt committee and the Select Committee, but nothing has been done. I am critical
378
of the Government, but the Press Complaints Commission of knows that there must be some self-regulation and some ground rules. That is how every other organisation works.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but there is not enough time.
The press breaks its own embargoes on the Queen's Speech. There is no question of the Press Complaints Commission fining or suspending anyone. There are picket lines on doorsteps as soon as anyone is in the news and an army of freelances invades people's houses.
The tactics of the press and the growth of electronic surveillance cannot be allowed to continue without some control. The British press now resembles the KGB, the Stasi and J. Edgar Hoover, and all the villains use the excuse of investigative journalism.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What could The Sunday Times have done?
Mr. Ashton: It could have gone to the police. It is amazing how often the police tipped off The Sunday Times when they were about to raid the house of Bruce Grobelaar when he was accused of taking a bribe. They work and collude together, but the victim has no recourse unless he has £500,000 to spend in the libel courts, which few people have.
In the two or three years since Calcutt and the Select Committee report, the Press Complaints Commission has refused to introduce ground rules in the same way as the British Medical Association and the Law Society have done, or self-regulation stating that it is not in favour of entrapment or of agents provocateurs.
A recent article in The Sun stated:
"Colin Stagg, cleared of murdering Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, is suing the police for malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest…after an Old Bailey judge condemned police over a trap set by an undercover girl detective to lure him into a confession."
The girl had carried a tape recorder and when the police produced the tape in court, the judge kicked out the evidence.
We now have one rule for the police and another for the press. The Select Committee report on the press stated that there should be no protection for Members of Parliament or any other famous people. It suggested that wd go into the arena, so we know what to expect, but even in an arena we expect some Marquess of Queensberry rules.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
There are no rules even in the House. Anyone connected with the press who comes into the House should wear a badge. At the Labour and Tory party conferences, members of the press have to wear a badge. How many times do we go into a bar in the House and talk to a strange face? We do not know who those people are and they do not introduce themselves. They have been banned from the Terrace because of the way in which they hounded hon. Members who were in the news, so they now resort to the subterfuge of going on to the Terrace with a microphone up their sleeve.

379
Why cannot the Committee of Privileges and the Press Complaints Commission get together and say that we shall accept the present method of lobbying, provided that there are Lobby rules in the House so that we know what is happening?
When members of the press ring me, I automatically assume that they have a tape recorder running at the other end of the telephone. I have taken three cases to the Press Complaints Commission—I won twice and lost once—and the telephone conversation was produced every time. Everyone should be aware that the growth of electronic technology is such that it has produced not the freedom of the press, but the unlicensed tyranny of the press, which newspapers abuse regularly to denigrate democracy in the House and increase circulation.
5.58 pm
Mr. David Evans: It is important for debates in a national Parliament to reflect the central cultures of the nation that it aims to represent, so today's debate must be reflecting the time-honoured British custom of hypocrisy.
The Sunday Times, once a great national paper, is reduced to gutter reporting. Everybody in the nation and everybody in the House knows perfectly well what those journalists were doing. They used totally different approaches to Conservative and Labour Members. One minute they were talking about offers of a public affairs contract, the next they were having a conversation on the Terrace about consultancy and then, when the Committee asked for a very important tape—the House will not believe this—they lost the tape. They think that we all come out the Thames in a biscuit tin.
It seems, however, that there is a gulf of difference in the way in which Members register how they sell their services. What is the definition of long or short-term consultancy work? What is the definition of consultancy work? Surely those are two of the central questions that we should be asking.
We should consider also establishing a suitable means of adjudicating on alleged cases of corruption and misuse of privilege. If a Member's memory falls foul of the hazy House of Commons guidelines, he must undergo a trial by a kangaroo court. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) returned the cheque on the same day that he received it. He believed that the transaction could be classed as a short-term consultancy. After checking the details of the transaction more thoroughly, he felt, as he put it—this was on reflection—that it would be inappropriate for him to accept the cheque. He made a mistake and he did everything in his power to remedy it as quickly as possible. He apologised to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley acted as honourably as he could after he had discovered that he had made an error of judgment. Somehow that is not good enough. The Committee of Privileges still wishes to punish him. The Committee classed my hon. Friend's concept of short-term consultancy as a breach of privilege even though there are no clear guidelines.
380
It is not only Members who sell their services. We know that entire political parties sell their souls and their policies for financial reward. For a start, take that lot over there on the Opposition Benches. Why is it that 175 Opposition Members, including the entire Opposition Front Bench, are sponsored by unions? Why is that? It is done so that Labour Members can table questions on behalf of unions day in, day out, to look after their unions' interests.
Why does the Labour party raise £8.5 million a year? Half of it comes from its unions so that it can look after their interests. That is why Labour Members table questions day in, day out in this place.
Why is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, who is better known as Bambi or the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Oratory), so eager to explain to the British public that
"trade unions will have no special or privileged place within the Labour Party"?
How is it that such wanton hypocrisy is allowed to go unpunished?
Labour does not confine itself to exercising hypocrisy in accepting favours from the unions. The Labour leadership campaign provides an example. Three former London Weekend Television executives paid and fund-raised most of the £79,000 required for Bambi to become the leader of the Labour party. Those executives all made millions out of share option schemes. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been trying to make sanctimonious scandal out of share option schemes. Does not that seem a little like double standards? Why was not the £79,000—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have had an amusing couple of minutes, but I must bring the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to the motion that we are debating, which is set out on the Order Paper. Perhaps he will return to the motion and the amendments that are before us.
Mr. Evans: The double standards in this place are there for all to see. Have any of us never made a mistake? We have all made mistakes. When we pass through the Lobbies, we shall see the ones who claim that they have never made a mistake. We shall see which Lobby they pass through.
I do not condone the actions of the Members in this matter, but rather than make scapegoats of them so as to brush a problem under the carpet, surely it is best that we think seriously about remedying the nonsense in the rules governing privilege. In that way, we shall all know where we stand. When a Member clearly breaks the rules against that background, I shall be the first to say that he or she must be punished.
6.4 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) feels most relieved to have got all that off his chest.

381
First, if it had not been for The Sunday Times, the truth would not have come out. Let there be no doubt about that. Secondly, can we be clear what we are talking about? We are talking about conduct by Members—
Mr. Allason: Four Members.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps more than 100 other Members.
Over the years, Members have been prepared to sell the service of using parliamentary procedures to their clients for personal benefit. That has been going on for decades in the House, and that is what the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) stand accused of. Let their punishment be seen in that light.
I have major and deeply-seated concerns about the report of the Privileges Committee. I feel ambiguous about the conclusions that the Committee has arrived at. Paragraph 47 causes me particular concern. It reads:
"We see"—
that is, the Committee—
"no sustainable distinction between a payment of £1000 for tabling a Parliamentary Question and a consultancy for which the fee is £1000 and the only requirement the tabling of a Parliamentary Question."
The Committee sees "no sustainable distinction" between the two propositions. Nor do I.
I would go further. I see no distinction between a. consultancy for which the fee is £1,000 for tabling one question over a period of a few days, and a consultancy for which the fee is the same £1,000 for tabling a series of questions over a few weeks. There is no distinction to be drawn. In my view, they are both consultancies.
I understand that the hon. Member for Colne Valley protested to the Committee—this was later in his evidence—and said that he did not believe that it was a consultancy when he realised that he had to table only one question. I do not accept that. The relationship was parliamentary consultancy from beginning to end and indistinguishable from other relationships between Members and their clients in which series of questions are being asked.
The Committee, however, has seen a distinction. Paragraph 48 states that, in the first case, the action
"fell short of the standards the House is entitled to expect of its Members, and that the House should take appropriate action to mark this view."
That is in the case of one question for £1,000. When it comes to the issue of a number of questions for £1,000, the Committee fails to take a position and says, in effect, that it may well return to the matter later.
The Committee had a duty to consider consultancy in its widest context before it drew the conclusions that it did in the case of the hon. Members for Colne Valley and
382
for Bosworth. There is a simple reason for its failure to consider the wider issue of consultancy. From the inception of the inquiry, when the Privileges Committee was set up to examine the entire affair, the Committee was riddled or laden down with Members with commercial interests.
Their remit was to protect consultancies. They set out with a strategic aim, which was to isolate two Members, make out that what they did was not consultancy and somehow preserve the position of Members engaged in consultancy and doing precisely the same thing. That was an unacceptable way in which to proceed. I feel that the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth must receive some form of punishment, but I shall not enter the Division Lobby.
6.10 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I have heard enough this afternoon to confirm the belief with which I came into the Chamber—that the process that we have followed in investigating these complaints is entirely wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now required under the Standing Order to put the Question on the amendments. We come first of all to amendment (b).
Mr. Winnick: I withdraw the amendment.
Madam Speaker: Amendments (c), (d), (e) and (f) are not moved.
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 April].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 351);'

(ii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Colne Valley, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for ten sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period and

(iii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Bosworth, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period.

Select Committees
[Relevant document: the First Special Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 288).]
6.11 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That if any select committee, or sub-committee thereof, considers that the presence at a meeting, or part of a meeting, of that committee to which the public are not admitted of any specified Member of the House not nominated to that committee would obstruct the business of the committee, it shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
As matters stand at the moment, any Member of the House has a right to be present at meetings of a Select Committee of which he or she is not a member, even if the Committee is meeting in private. "Erskine May" tells us that Members usually leave if asked to do so, and it says that they
"ought, on the grounds of established usage and courtesy to the committee, immediately to retire when the committee is about to deliberate".
But if they refuse to go, the Committee has no powers to make them, although it can ask the House to take action.
A difficulty of that kind arose earlier this year in the Select Committee on Members' Interests. On 7 February, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) attended a private meeting of the Committee. As the Committee proceeded to consideration of the draft report, the hon. Gentleman attempted to address the Committee. Although the hon. Gentleman was strictly within his rights in attending, it was clearly not appropriate for him, or consistent with the advice in "Erskine May", I would judge, to seek to interfere directly with the Committee's proceedings. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who, for health reasons, has apologised to the House for the fact that he is unable to be here this evening, asked him to leave, but he refused. The Committee then adjourned.
On 7 March, the hon. Member for Workington again attended a private meeting of the Committee, and again refused to leave when asked to do so. The Committee then reported to the House, seeking from the House the power to exclude the hon. Gentleman from its future private meetings.
In considering how to advise the House on how it might deal with that request, it seemed to me sensible to consider responding by introducing a general provision to cover such circumstances, rather than simply to propose an ad hoc resolution directed at one hon. Member in relation to one Select Committee. Accordingly, after consultation with the Chairmen of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and through the usual channels, I have tabled the motion before the House.
The motion provides that any Select Committee that finds that its business is being obstructed in such a way by a Member who is not a member of the Committee would have the power to direct that Member to withdraw from a private meeting and, if necessary, to call on the Serjeant at Arms to enforce any such direction. It applies
384
both to deliberative meetings, which Select Committees are required by the rules of the House to conduct in private, and also to meetings at which a Committee has decided to take oral evidence in private.
There are two things that I should emphasise. First, this is permissive, not mandatory. Non-members of Committees will still be able to attend Committees' private meetings if the Committee does not regard them as obstructing its proceedings, and their rights to attend meetings at which evidence is given in public—that is to say meetings where the public in the more general sense are allowed in—are not affected in any way by the terms of the motion.
The second point that I wish to emphasise is that that power is not a dictatorial power vested in the Chairman of the Committee acting alone, but in the Committee as a whole. No Member could be asked to leave a private meeting unless the Committee had first discussed the matter and decided that, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for him or her to remain in the Room.
This matter needs to be resolved, so that the Select Committee on Members' Interests can make progress with its current inquiry.
But I commend the motion to the House not only on that basis, but because I think it represents a sensible power to be available to all Select Committees to ensure that their work, which the House rightly values highly, can proceed as the House would wish.
6.14 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I make it clear in opening my remarks this evening that I do not intend to breach the privileges of the Select Committee on Members' Interest in any way by saying anything about evidence that is being given to it. I say that, Madam Speaker, to put at rest your mind and the minds of the Clerks of the House in so far as they might feel that I would be inclined to breach that principle. I do not intend to do that. I intend to speak to the motion and, if necessary, to call on the precedents of earlier debates, not only in this century but in the previous century, to justify what I am doing.
I stand accused of disrupting the Select Committee on Members' Interests. The motion would give a Committee the power to direct a Member who disrupted or obstructed the business of a Committee to withdraw. I will argue—indeed I do argue—that a Committee should not be given that power, and that the Floor of the House must crucially remain the forum for appeal for a Member who feels that a Committee is conducting its affairs contrary to the interests of Parliament.
Let me give the House an example of a Committee which, by its conduct, is failing to carry out the remit set by resolution from the Floor of the House of Commons—the Select Committee on Members' Interests. My view is that its proceedings are an abuse of Parliament, and in the way in which I acted I have been able—and will be able—to draw attention to its deficiencies. There is no other proceeding in the House that allows a Member to do this. I can ask a question: that is not a debate. I can apply for an Adjournment debate; I have no guarantee that I will be called, because I may not be selected or may not come up in the ballot. I can apply for the ballot for motions—I have no right to win the ballot. I have no right to catch

385
your eye, Madam Speaker, in any debate, and no right of laying down, other than through the process of ballot, a motion that is debatable in this place.
If hon. Members think about what I am saying, it is the only proceeding open to me as a Member of the House of Commons to initiate a debate of this nature. Let me use the Select Committee on Members' Interests as an example. Its members cannot do what I am doing, because, being members of that Committee, they cannot reveal what is, in effect, unreported evidence to the House. They cannot comment publicly on its proceedings. I can, if I find out, by whatever means.
Indeed, in this case I was able to read about it in The Guardian. They have no rights to do what I am doing. My view is that any Member of the House of Commons who believes that the proceedings of a Committee of the House are being abused has a responsibility to use proceedings to draw the wider attention of Parliament to what is happening, as indeed I would argue is happening in that Committee. This is the only procedure that I know can be used.
Let me be more specific. There are two Committees of the House of Commons that are, effectively, quasi-judicial—the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I heard, during the debate that took place on the report into John Browne, some eloquent speeches by Conservative Members of the House, arguing that the proceedings were so judicial that they required a different approach by Westminster. So I think that we would generally concede that they are quasi-judicial.
What happens if a Government Whip—a Minister of the Crown—is placed on that Committee? Does it inspire confidence in the public to know that that Committee is adjudicating on matters that are quasi-judicial and yet can be subject to the influence of a Whip—the person who fixes the pairings, and may arrange foreign delegations; the person who, perhaps, allows a Member to go off and visit his or her family, and who may even arrange a promotion? I believe that, if a Whip's eye is on the proceedings of a Committee, it will influence the way in which the Committee works.
If members of such a Committee can say nothing—if the only way in which we can ensure that the matters that we are discussing are drawn to the attention of Parliament as a whole is for someone like myself to use the procedures of the House to that end—so be it. That is one reason for my actions; I shall give others shortly.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for a Committee of the House ever to satisfy the House—and, in particular, the public—that it is judging issues of credibility fairly? Does not the judgment of credibility itself lose all credence in the public mind if a Whip is on the Committee, influencing the way in which members of his party vote on whether a Member of Parliament should be believed or not?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. and learned Gentleman has encapsulated my argument in fewer sentences than I have used. That argument concerns the Committee's credibility in the eyes of the wider public and, indeed, Parliament.
That is the first abuse that, in my view, requires protest: in that context, this forum is essential for the identification of a deficiency. The second, however, is far more
386
important, and one in which I would expect parliamentarians to take a particular interest. I refer to the relationship between a Committee of the House of Commons and a court of law.
We know that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is bringing a libel action against The Guardian, and I know that, subject to the rules of the House, members of the Committee cannot speak about these matters outside the Committee. What happens if, during that Committee's proceedings, the fact that a libel action may be brought by an hon. Member—the subject of a complaint—begins to interfere with the Committee's judgments and the way in which it conducts its inquiry? What happens if the Committee decides, in its wisdom, that it is not prepared to address a particular subject because it feels that that might prejudice—I use the term advisedly—action that may or may not subsequently arise in a court of law?
That is precisely what is happening in the Select Committee on Members' Interests. If members of that Committee are not free to speak on such matters, who will speak—except people like me, who are prepared to take on the House's procedures to bring Parliament's attention to what we consider a deficiency?
I put it to the House that the timing of the inquiries—I stress that the word is plural—by the Committee is being determined by a civil action in the courts. I ask hon. Members to think of the implications. Let us suppose that someone's action—whatever it might be—had to be referred, by way of complaint, to either the Privileges Committee or the Select Committee on Members' Interests; the Member involved might say, "Ah: if the Committee will have the probability of a libel action in mind, perhaps I"—that is, the person about whom the complaint is being made—"should bring a libel action in the courts, knowing that it may be delayed for two or three years."
That is a way of effectively destroying Parliament's right to debate issues and carry out full inquiries, and that is what I object to. That is why I say that we must have the right to protest on the Floor of the House: Committee members cannot speak about the matters to which I am referring now.
The libel action that I mentioned is not even listed, and may never be listed. I understand that there are some judgments that have a bearing on whether it will be listed. My hon. Friends cannot refer to the matter, but I can, because of the procedure that I have used. I refer to Burdett v. Abbott in 1811 and Stockdale v. Hansard in 1839. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their Members—their right to impose discipline within their walls—is absolute and exclusive.
It is possible that, if someone faced a libel action brought by a Member of Parliament when the House was dealing with a complaint, it could be argued in a court of law that the matter must be dealt with in Parliament rather than the courts, and the Member concerned might well have to petition Parliament before he could deal with the issues with which he wished to deal in court. My argument is that the Committee is being manipulated by proceedings in a court of law, in a way to which my hon. Friends cannot refer. I am using the only procedure open to me in order to refer to it.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the relationship between

387
a Select Committee and courts of law, but may I return him to his first point? He referred to Whips sitting in on Select Committees. Surely it is accurate to say that—as my hon. Friend suggested—when a Government Whip is involved he is, in practice, a Minister of the Crown. Moreover, he is a paid Minister of the Crown: he is paid to do the work of the Executive, which we accept for reasonable purposes as individuals sitting in the Chamber. Is it not a practice, however, for no Minister to be a member of a Select Committee, and is that not an even more powerful argument for resisting the incursion of the Executive on the legislature?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must dissent slightly from my hon. Friend's comments. There are Committees to which there have been Government appointments, but I am talking about quasi-judicial Committees—special Committees.
Another abuse requires protest. It, too, is linked with the libel trial. To what extent should a libel trial determine who gives evidence to a Committee? If Mr. Al-Fayed, Mr. Greer and the hon. Member for Tatton do not give evidence to that Committee because of the possibility of a subsequent libel trial, I would argue that Parliament's proceedings are being interfered with. But my hon. Friends can say nothing to the Committee, because they are locked in by an oath of secrecy and confidentiality—which, I must say, I have always supported in a different context involving non-reporting of proceedings.
Sir Terence Higgins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about Whips on Committees, and have some sympathy with his view about the relationship between Committees of the House and outside judicial proceedings. I may not have followed the hon. Gentleman closely enough, but I do not understand what parliamentary procedures he seeks to invoke to put matters right. Does he argue that he has the right to disrupt Committees to bring these issues to the attention of the House?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am speaking against the motion. The Leader of the House has tabled a motion that would give the Chair power to exclude those who wished to protest about what goes in Select Committees, when it is known that members of those Committees can say nothing because they are bound by an oath of secrecy and a principle of not speaking on unreported evidence.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has just said that a problem arises if the individual is bringing a case of defamation, or of libel as he termed it, against someone or a newspaper, as that conflicted with the interests of this place in so far as the Committee could not hear evidence from those people. Surely he must be careful that the individual, by being a Member of Parliament, has no fewer rights to defend himself or herself in a court of law if that is their chosen venue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped what I have said. I am not saying that those things conflict, but that Committee members have decided that they are prepared to give the court action precedence. That is interfering with their judgment on the way in which the Committee should proceed.
388
Protest should take place on the basis of another argument. It relates to the way in which the Committee has been taking evidence. We know that a libel trial is going on outside. We find that when Peter Preston, the editor of The Guardian, was giving evidence to the Committee, the hon. Member for Tatton was present in the room to hear the evidence. However, when the hon. Gentleman submits his evidence to the Committee, whether it be oral or written, The Guardian editor is not allowed access to that evidence.
The Committee, therefore, is being used as a sort of discovery forum where a Member can discover the case of The Guardian, but The Guardian cannot discover the case of the hon. Member for Tatton. It seems to be a very unlevel playing field, if I might use that term. I object to the fact that the Committee's proceedings are being used in a way that favours one party in his action, in the event that it were to take place in a court of law.
Another abuse certainly requires protest. It is one that should be close to your heart, Madam Speaker. When a Committee leaks, there is normally a leak inquiry. We know for a fact that the Committee has been leaking like a sieve because, in early March, The Guardian published an article that, I understand, was based on the Committee's draft report. The article stated: "Hamilton breached MPs rules".
Who objected? Did the Committee convene to consider that leak? Whenever I have been on a Committee where a leak has occurred—thankfully, over the years, there have been few—normally we have had a leak inquiry. If I remember rightly, a leak happened only once when I was on the Public Accounts Committee, whose Chairman is present, and we went to Liaison Committee. A discussion had to take place in the Liaison Committee about what action would be taken, yet the Select Committee on Members' Interests, for whatever reason—I shall come to it in a minute—is not prepared to ask for a leak inquiry.
I shall tell hon. Members why no request for a leak inquiry has been made. It is simple. No inquiry has been requested because that Committee is leaking like a sieve through the Tory Whips Office. That is where the leaks are coming from. A Committee member is in the Whips Office. Furthermore, everything that happens in the Committee is going not only into the Tory Whips Office, but to the hon. Member for Tatton, who knows chapter and verse what is happening in the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
I challenge anyone on the Government Bench to deny what I am saying. They know the truth. They know that, if they come to the Dispatch Box and deny what I am saying, it is contempt of the House. It is contempt deliberately to mislead Parliament. The hon. Member for Tatton knows in detail what is happening during proceedings in that Committee, which is discredited.
Mr. James Clappison: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the matter, but, in effect, he is complaining about the procedures of the House. Is not obstructing that Committee the wrong way to complain about those procedures? May I give the hon. Gentleman one example of where he is wrong? He has complained about one of the Committee members. He probably knows full well that a procedure exists in the House for appointing Committee members. When that

389
hon. Member was appointed, neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else objected to that Member's inclusion on the Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is obviously a time for honesty. My hon. Friends will be surprised by what I am going to say. The hon. Gentleman may remember that, last year, an argument took place in the House about the conduct of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). After I had objected to every Select Committee appointment for four months, I did a deal with the Tory Whips—I admit it. I agreed that I would not object to any more Members being appointed to any Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has required me to breach a confidence. He presses me across the Floor. He is a Conservative Member. I did a deal saying that I would not object, and, of course, the nomination went through. I kept my side of the bargain—I did not object—but Ministers of the Crown should have known that it was improper to appoint a Minister to that Committee. They must have realised that that would lead to an argument in the House.
Some people are sceptical about the reason why Ministers put that Whip on the Committee. It might be that, at that time, they knew that an argument would take place about the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I will not go into that today. They will certainly have known about the complaint about the hon. Member for Tatton. They may have foreseen that a number of complaints would be considered by that Committee over a period of months, which would be highly embarrassing, and that they needed the services of a Whip to ensure that the Whips Office was kept informed of what was going on in the Committee.
The hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) smiles, but I ask her rise to her feet and challenge anything that I have said. She has been a member of the Committee for 10 long years, nine of them with me. I know her well on these matters. Normally, she would protest. Please protest.
Dame Peggy Fenner: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to intervene and I am nothing if not obedient. I know him to be a man who feels strongly about things. May I take up one point that he has made? My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was sitting in at the deliberations, but, as things are at present, he was entitled to. Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman, who is a great constitutionalist, that he thinks that we should not allow Members to sit in? We should allow them to do so.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady makes my case for me. If she and her hon. Friends had the libel action in mind in determining the Committee's proceedings, she should not have allowed the hon. Member for Tatton to sit in on Mr. Preston's evidence as she would be destabilising the playing field, or it would not be level in terms of the information made available. It is she and her colleagues who would introduce the element of libel action.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has its authority as a result of the resolution of this place, that it is therefore arrogant of him to say that its decisions, which are made with that authority, are wrong, and that he is entitled just to walk into the Committee and speak in breach of all the
390
rules? What does that say about this place's powers and the Committee's authority? Is he not breaching it through arrogance?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is a searcher for the truth.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank my hon. Friend. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman is correct. What I have done might be perceived to be arrogant, but I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman: what alternative did I have to draw attention to all those undeniable deficiencies?
Mr. Terry Lewis: May I try to clear up the question of Peter Preston's evidence? It should be set against the background of the four principal players in the whole inquiry. The whole tenor of the Committee changed as soon as the Whip was appointed to the Committee and walked in part of the way through the inquiry. We were left in a position where discipline was imposed and three of the four principals were excluded from the Committee's examination. I know of no Select Committee which was to examine people which examined one person and excluded three.
When Peter Preston came, his case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, was prejudiced because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) exercised his right, as a Member of the House, to sit in on that investigation and inquiry and to take notes. To my mind, that is unacceptable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on raising this matter for debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is unacceptable only because a majority of the members of the Committee were prepared to have the possibility of a libel action in mind when they were deliberating on the pace of proceedings. It is clear that, to begin with, the delay of six weeks since my alleged sin was committed was very convenient for the Government. I understand that the Whips were crowing. They said, "We may well get this case listed before we can get on to the second part of the inquiry." I do not want to go into the detail of those allegations, but many would argue that they should have been dealt with in the first part—
Mr. Bill Etherington: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, but we must not deal with the detail of the allegations.
Mr. Etherington: If I go wrong, I am sure that you will put me right, Madam Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the libel action was well known about before Peter Preston was called? It had been agreed that witnesses would be called. Only after Peter Preston had given his evidence, which was heard by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), did the Conservative majority decide to hear no more evidence.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are learning something new by the minute. If that is the case, the Committee is discredited and what I did was absolutely right. It means that the great British public cannot rely on a parliamentary Committee to be objective when it sits down to adjudicate on matters of that nature. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington)

391
harden my resolve and my feeling that what I have done is right, even though it might be described as arrogant by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
I have used the only procedure available to me in the House of Commons to raise the issue. There is no other way and that is why the motion is wrong. It is ill-conceived because it means that, if such things happen again in future and members of a Committee are constrained in respect of what they can say in public because of issues of privilege and contempt of the House, no one will be able to do what I had the right to do and that is to get up today and reveal what is happening. I did that in the public interest.
The Leader of the House is today closing down the public interest. He is closing down the opportunity for debate. He is taking away the right to protest. The right that I have used is not being abused. It has been used very rarely over the years. It was used once in 1991; once in 1994; once in 1989; once in 1982; once in 1974; once in 1952; once in 1827 and once in 1849. The point is that the procedure has been used very rarely over the years. However, when it has been used, it has been used to defend the interests of Parliament.
6.43 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I should like to return to the motion, which relates to procedures in Select Committees, not to the detail of the procedure that has been partly completed in one Select Committee. The time to discuss the behaviour of a Committee and the way in which it called evidence and the evidence that it published is when the evidence has been completed and is published for the House. The minutes of the Committee are published for the House, as are the recommendations. That would be the normal procedure. However, those of us on the Select Committee on Members' Interests faced a situation that became quite intolerable.
At this point, I must stress that I am not usurping the role of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He is indisposed and I am not seeking to speak for him or to take on his mantle. The important feature of this debate is that we should make it possible for a Select Committee that was given direct and clear instructions by the House to continue and complete the work that it was authorised to begin.
It is entirely improper for there to be discussion outside the Committee on matters discussed by the Committee before the Committee has had a chance to reach a conclusion. It is wrong to suggest that the Committee has been behaving other than according to the normal rules that apply to Select Committees of this House. It has been meticulous in its respect for the rights of Opposition Members and it was courteous when it was interrupted, not once, but twice.
It was explained to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who interrupted the Committee, that the matter he raised was not one for the Committee because the Committee does not decide its own composition. The House decides who shall sit on a Committee. If any hon. Member has the slightest objection about a nomination, that protest should be made when such a nomination appears on the Order Paper, when there is an opportunity to vote on the matter.
392
If hon. Members do not read the Order Paper, that is not the fault of the Committee or a fault of the proceedings of this House; it is a lack of diligence. If someone wishes to accept that he or she lacked diligence, that is a matter for that person. The issue of who should be a member of a Select Committee is not the issue before us tonight, and who interrupted the Select Committee on Members' Interests is not of particular importance.
The hon. Member for Workington is overweening in his suggestion of his own significance in this matter. The matter that he wanted to raise was raised in the wrong place. He was in the wrong place and he was discourteous. Until that time, it had been assumed that, if an hon. Member wished to attend a Select Committee meeting, particularly a Select Committee of the nature of the Select Committee. on Members' Interests, he would do so. An hon. Member was not expected to interrupt such a Committee.
I have been a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests for as long as any serving Member. I cannot remember the Committee being interrupted in that way. However, had such an interruption occurred, I would have assumed—and I believe that most hon. Members from all parties would have done so too—that the Chairman would request the hon. Member to withdraw. If the Chairman had asked the hon Member to withdraw, I assume that he or she would have done so. That may not have been a well-founded assumption, but that is what I assumed.
However, once it has been found possible to stop a Select Committee deliberating, what prospects have been opened up if we do not take firm action immediately? Any Member of the House who decides that he does not like what a Select Committee is doing and who thinks that there may be some party political or personal advantage to be gained can simply disrupt the Committee in the knowledge that it will take some time to bring the matter to the Floor of the House.
One person, whose name has been referred to in the debate, is a victim of the tactics of the hon. Member for Workington—my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
Mr. Lewis: Come on.
Mr. Griffiths: I will certainly come on, and say that justice should be done as swiftly as possible. I do not reveal secrets from the Select Committee, except to say that we have made progress; we are moving towards a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has a right to know the decision of the Committee at the earliest possible moment.
The result of the two interventions by the hon. Member for Workington has been simply that the Committee has not been able to sit. It has not been able to listen to the comments of his hon. Friends who, on occasion, have had my support in that Committee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have never found me taking a purely party political line, and I object to the suggestion that that might be so.
Ms Angela Eagle: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about his conduct. As he is so worried about the delay, does he agree that it is disgraceful that we have had to wait six weeks since my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) came into our Committee proceedings to have this debate? In the

393
past, such matters were always dealt with on the same day or the day after. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that is the fault of the Leader of the House?
Mr. Griffiths: I certainly regret that there was a delay. Had the hon. Member for Workington made his protest on the one occasion and then left the matter at that point, the Committee would have met again the following week. It would then have proceeded to deal with the matter in hand. But the hon. Gentleman repeated the interruption, and that meant that it was not possible for the Committee to continue its work.
As for the suggestion that there is some division between the two parties on the Select Committee—which I resent—I am sure that many hon. Members will recall that, on two occasions, I pressed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for an early debate. I also pressed that he should initiate the debate on a substantive motion, which would have dealt with the impasse that had arisen.
I believe that the Select Committee on Members' Interests has behaved properly. Individual members of that Committee have also behaved properly according to their consciences. That has always been so on the Committee. I do not recall any breaches at any time in this Parliament or previously.
I do not want to delay the discussion. I simply ask that we consider the needs of Select Committees to carry out the remit of the House. They need the opportunity to discuss matters privately on occasions, and to discuss matters with care. The contributions of individual hon. Members should be equal, regardless of their party or their length of service. Each person who is properly appointed by this House should be allowed to express his view.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has become moribund for two reasons? First, the libel action has stopped progress in the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one evening the Committee sat from 6 pm to 9 pm. We did much work, but since the libel action was initiated that work has stopped. Secondly, in respect of a Minister being appointed to the Committee, hon. Members objected at earlier meetings, not later.
Those two matters are of great concern to certain members of the Committee. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been very co-operative with the Chairman of the Committee and has been trying to behave in a non-partisan way, but the Committee is making no progress for those two reasons.
Mr. Griffiths: Those matters can be resolved within the Committee when it is permitted to meet and to carry on its discussions. It can decide its own procedures. It will report its conclusions and the minutes of the discussions will be made available. There will be no secrecy about what happened and when. Any evidence that is called will be reported fully to this House and there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter at that point. To call in the jury before the evidence has been heard is grossly unfair to the person who is the subject of consideration by the Select Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: This must be the last time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: According to The Guardian, in so far as part of a report has been leaked to The
394
Guardian, the Committee was dealing with a draft report. That being so, is it true that, when that draft report was being considered, members of the Committee had in mind the existence of a potential libel action? Did they have it in mind?
Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that the House would expect me to answer a question about what was said in Committee. I would not presume to say what was in the minds of my fellow members of the Committee. All that I know is that the matter was discussed and that we were moving, having taken some evidence, towards the point where we would seek to reach conclusions. That is what was being done.
Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we took advice in Committee about the libel case? We were told by the Clerk to the Committee, who had taken advice, that we could proceed to deliberate on all those matters because the case had not been put down. Is that my hon. Friend's understanding? It is certainly mine.
Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I had rather hesitated to say what legal advice we were given. Certainly, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who raised the matter earlier, was aware that the Committee was told that it could discuss whatever it wished and that it could proceed, regardless of what was happening outside, until the question of sub judice arose. I would not wish to go beyond that. That was the legal advice that the Committee had; it was available to every member of the Committee. It would be available to any Member of the House who sought legal advice, presumably.
The point tonight is that the Select Committee on Members' Interests needs to complete its discussions. We ask for the protection of the House in carrying out the duty that the House gave us. We need, therefore, the right for our Chairman to exclude any person who seeks to disrupt our proceedings—no one else.
As this matter has been the subject of so much discussion, there is a danger that others may be tempted to follow along the very undesirable path trodden by the hon. Member for Workington. Therefore, it is necessary that all Select Committees have a power in reserve so that it can be used if it becomes entirely necessary. Whenever it is used, of course, it will be used on behalf of the House, and the House will make the decision. The House is the final arbiter. Select Committees are simply the instruments that do their humble best to carry out the duties that are given to them.
6.57 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. I do so as the complainant in both complaints made to the Select Committee on Members' Interests in relation to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). In normal circumstances, I would agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who is well known for his independence and for not being a slave to the party Whips. However, extreme circumstances call for extreme actions. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has rightly been driven to extreme actions in this case.

395
As one of the lawyers in the House, I am used to hearing the courts and lawyers criticised for being slow, indecisive and inefficient. I have to say, as the complainant, that the Select Committee on Members' Interests has been slow, indecisive and inefficient. Even the enormous charm of its Chairman can do nothing to hide those conclusions. The complaints made against the hon. Member for Tatton have not been adjudicated upon; the Committee has delayed for months.
In relation to at least one set of those complaints, there is an issue of credibility, although I shall not go into it on the Floor of the House. It is well known, and it has been expressed in the public domain, that the allegation is denied. Witnesses are available to give evidence about the complaint, and, of course, the hon. Member for Tatton, if he wishes, can give evidence to deny the complaint. The task of the Committee is to adjudicate on who is telling the truth—or so one would have thought. Yet, months after I made the original complaint, not only has neither of the protagonists been called to give evidence before the Committee but the Committee has resisted calling witnesses to give evidence.
If a complaint is made on the basis of an hon. Member being paid cash or vouchers in return for assisting a particular business, and if that allegation is denied, how on earth can anybody inside and outside the House have any confidence in a Committee that does not even have the courage to adjudicate on the issue of who is telling the truth? In this Committee's action we have the very evidence necessary, if it were necessary, to convince the country that the implementation of recommendations made by Lord Nolan's committee that there should be some independent scrutiny of issues of factual credibility is very much needed.
In circumstances such as those under discussion, it would be quite wrong for the House to approve action against the hon. Member for Workington when what he did was to highlight serious shortcomings in Committee procedure. I am not satisfied with the failure of the Select Committee to adjudicate on my complaints. I feel like a litigant left without a solution, a remedy. Surely the House cannot possibly be satisfied with that state of affairs.
7.1 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: This House has entrusted the Select Committee on Members' Interests with its authority. In doing so, I believe that we, as Members of this House, should respect that. We should, in a sense, set a standard. If we invest a Committee with authority, especially an authority which, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) explained, is absolute and exclusive in a certain area, it should be wrong for individual Members, whether they be the hon. Member for Workington or, indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to say that their judgment is greater than that of the House, greater than that of the Committee, thereby abandoning an essential principle. If one sets up such a Committee, as we have in this House, we should not interfere with its authority.
That principle has been this place for more than 150 years. In 1844, the Speaker observed in a similar issue:
396
"no Member who was not a Member of the Committee had any right to interfere with the proceedings … though he might be present in the room."
Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: Not just yet. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall in a minute.
It is important to look at why we have those rules. The manner of the investigation of a Committee of this sort is important. If the investigation is to be judicial, it must be made in an atmosphere that is not sullied by sympathy or prejudice and is not interfered with by individual Members who put their own opinions above those of the Committee and seek to interfere with its business. There is a danger of improper pressure on Committee members if hon. Members attend the Committee's deliberations and make personal attacks on its members, as the hon. Member for Workington has today with reference to a particular Member.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who?
Mr. Heald: The Government Whip in question.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
Mr. Heald: It is certainly a personal attack to say that that Whip was trying to influence the Committee.
Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: Not just yet.
It is certainly a personal attack to say that somebody who is there to do his duty on a Committee and who has been placed there by the House is likely to interfere and place undue influence on the Committee's members. There would be very little point in having such Committees—we might just as well go back to having a Committee of the whole House with witnesses brought to the Bar of the House—if all Members were entitled to attend Committees and to interfere in the processes. There must be a remedy.
Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: Not just yet.
The only remedy is that which the motion suggests—in fact, the traditional remedy. On other occasions when it has been necessary to exclude a Member from a Committee, a motion has been placed before the whole House and that person has then been told that he must not attend the Committee at the behest of the Chairman. If there is no remedy, such Committees will become meaningless.
It is wrong to say that there have been only a few instances over recent years. In the present climate, many interest groups which are represented—trade unions among them—by hon. Members from all parties, campaign for this, that and the other issue. If it becomes the practice that a Member may attend a Committee that is deliberating on one such issue and interfere with its process, Committees will not be able to do a proper job.
Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: Before I give way, I wish to say that it is worth remembering the words of Gladstone, who was involved in the debate in 1844. He said:

397
"great inconvenience would result from investing Members of that House, who were not Members of the Committee, with a recognised authority to appear as advocates…sitting in the Committee, and possessing every authority except that of voting, but taking part in the discussions equally with the Members of the Committee."
Hon. Members: He did not make that point.
Mr. Heald: He made that point. He also said:
"to adopt such an arrangement, while it was totally unnecessary as aiming at supplying a defect which did not exist, would be exceedingly mischievous, because it would impair the authority which belonged to the Committee, and would constitute a number of Members of the Committee, who would be swayed by different interests, and must render the tribunal less competent to conduct the proceedings in such a manner as would be conducive to the interests of the public".—[Official Report, 8 March 1844; Vol. 73, c. 724–25.]
The hon. Member for Workington wishes to attend the Committee and to put forward his own point of view on issues that are sub judice, and so on, with the aim of interfering with the views of its members. He also wants to be able to make unfair and unjustified attacks—I believe—on members of the Committee when he did not object to their selection or their election to that Committee. It is all very well and good to say, "Oh, I did a deal with the Whips," but that does not show the sort of campaigning spirit that he seems to be parading today.
The hon. Member for Workington described himself as somebody who could not find a remedy on the Order Paper and could not find a way in which to express his opinions. As a new Member in the House, I have noticed the hon. Gentleman in operation: nobody uses the Order Paper more, nobody is present more often at business questions, during points of order and at all the other opportunities that exist for Members to put a point of view if they wish to do so.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heald: I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in a moment.
The hon. Member for Workington is known as an operator—somebody who can make decisions and find ways in which to put forward a point of view. He may even wish to attend a debate on the Committee's report—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is an innocent abroad, who cannot find a way in which to put over his point of view, is frankly wrong. Everybody here knows that.
Ms Eagle: We are talking about a particular and rare instance. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that hon. Members should do if they believe that something is overwhelmingly and utterly wrong with the way in which a Committee is proceeding? If this motion is passed tonight, there will be no way in which to deal with such rare circumstances—ever. This is a very serious issue. I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's light-hearted speeches, but he is missing the point. What would he do if he were on a Committee and unable to speak, but he believed that
398
something utterly wrong was being allowed to go on and that there would be no way in which to draw the very serious matter to the attention of the House?
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that I do not accept her premise. There are ample opportunities in this place for campaigners—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are they?
Mr. Heald: I have already suggested six or seven ways in which Members can make their points of view known, including objecting to the appointment in the first place. There are many opportunities available here.
In the past, there have been occasions on which, because of. their powerful views on a particular issue, Members have been drawn to challenge a Committee and to interfere with its proceedings. In 1849, Bernal Osborne felt so strongly about the Irish Poor Law Committee that he tried to interfere with its deliberations, and was told to go.
Mr. Bill Michie: Which Committee?
Mr. Heald: It was the Irish Poor Law Committee, but there have been numerous examples down the years.
I do not believe that it is right for an individual Member to put his strong views above those of the House. When this place has decided by resolution to give a Committee authority to deal with an issue, it is simply wrong for another Member to be there trying to interfere with the members of the Committee and with its deliberations.
Mr. Streeter: I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that the disturbing aspect of the case before us is not simply the fact that the hon. Member for Workington has clearly broken the long-established rules and procedures of the House, but the fact that he has done so solely to pursue his personal agenda? That agenda is not about an issue of national security or a threat to democracy but is designed merely to peddle his personal diet of sleaze, slur and innuendo, and to attack Conservative Members.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. No doubt the hon. Member for Workington will have heard it.
A more fundamental issue is at stake—the law of Parliament, which has set out those principles for more than 150 years, and which the hon. Member for Workington, aided and abetted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, now wishes to break and to treat with contempt. That says something about the form of campaign with which they wish to associate themselves.
In the House there are many methods of making a point or pursuing a campaign, and both those Members have used them over the years. I believe that that is the democratic way of doing things. The other way is to ignore the authority of the House, and to be prepared to flout its rules, to be chucked out of the Chamber, to interfere with Committees—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: To wave the Mace?
Mr. Heald: I had intended to make another point, which is that all those activities amount to a principle that

399
we often hear expressed by Opposition Members—that it is justified to break the law for a cause. But there are an awful lot of causes, and if everybody is entitled to say, "I can break the law, because of my cause," we shall end up with anarchy. That principle is a Labour trait. We have seen it applied to the poll tax and to the Members of Parliament who refused to pay it; we have seen it on the picket lines and in many other contexts.
The worrying aspect is the "demo-ism"—the wish to take direct action to establish a form of street cred. The House should have no truck with that. I do not say that we should uphold the institution for the sake of it, but in our earlier debate on the report of the Privileges Committee the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that the issue at stake was the upholding of our constituents' rights. I believe that for that purpose the law of Parliament is important. Once we start breaking that law, there will be no end to it.
7.13 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: The motion is narrow, which is a pity, because the feeling in the Committee, and certainly among my hon. Friends, is that a wide-ranging issue of principle is involved. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on having taken action that will at least allow us a debate, even within the narrow terms of the motion.
There is no doubt that the Select Committee is in deadlock, but that has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington disrupting its proceedings; it stems from the make-up of the Committee itself. That is the problem, and it is a serious one. As has already been said by more than one Member, I am afraid that by its actions so far the Committee has discredited itself.
I sit on two Select Committees, and I tried to take part in the earlier debate on privileges but did not succeed. Comparing my experience on those two Committees, I can tell the House that the level of democracy in the Privileges Committee is years ahead of what happens in the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Not only has the Committee been discredited by its own make-up but we have been mugged by the rules of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has made clear, there is no way, shape or form in which we can speak out of turn as members of a Committee committed to sitting in private. We have to rely on other Members to help us out, and that is an unfortunate position to be in.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that we should leave it to the Committee to make its report, and the House could then debate and deliberate on the issues and the rights and wrongs. That idea is beyond belief, because there is no confidence whatever in the Committee. I not speak not for myself alone but for many members of the Committee who now find themselves in an impossible situation.
How can such a Select Committee be impartial when a Government Whip is sitting there? How can there be an impartial judgment when we called only one witness before the majority on the Committee decided that one witness for one side was enough, and that we should now make a rational judgment? How can that be right?
400
There are papers before the Committee that—
Mr. Terry Lewis:—have not even been discussed.
Mr. Michie: As my hon. Friend reminds me, those papers have not been discussed and cannot be discussed. "We'll see to that later," it is said, "Let's deal with this issue first. We want a decision now, having heard one witness, all in private. Then we will deal with the other issues."
To my mind, some of the papers before the Select Committee on Members' Interests are more revealing than anything that came out in the previous debate on cash for questions. The two or three Members involved in that affair are in the Endsleigh league compared with what might happen—
Mr. Alex Carlile: They are in the Vauxhall Conference.
Mr. Michie: Yes, those people are in the Vauxhall Conference compared with what might happen if the Committee were allowed to discuss or question some of the evidence before it.
Unfortunately, there are even greater restrictions, because some of that evidence may not even be within the remit of the Committee. Some have asked why we do not let the Privileges Committee deal with it, but unfortunately the rules of the House do not allow that to happen. I have some of them here. I shall not read them all out but, among other things, they say:
"It is not possible for Select Committees to exchange unpublished evidence",
although there are certain powers that enable that to happen in some circumstances. Apparently, the only way in which it can be done is for a motion to be brought to the House by a member of the Government. I do not have enough confidence in the Government to think that they would allow even one of their Members to do that. So that is another serious problem.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We need a protest.
Mr. Michie: My hon. Friend is right: we need a protest to ensure that that can happen.
The House should now free Members of Parliament and allow them to make the right investigations as responsible Members and as selected members of the Committee, rather than passing rules to restrict them as the motion would do.
The Nolan committee will respond to the Prime Minister and the House in May. It seems that the Select Committee and the Nolan committee—indeed, the House and the Nolan committee—are going in opposite directions: one, Nolan, is going for more openness and the other, the House, is going for more restrictions. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is battening down the hatches to ensure that information cannot flow, but it is battening down the hatches on a sinking ship.
Nolan is on the horizon, and unless the House gets its act together, Nolan will have to do it for us. The public are demanding more information and more transparency, yet the House—through a Committee with a Whip as a member—is restricting the rights of Members and information. I honestly believe that, unless we change our ways—we must have fewer, not more, restrictions—we

401
will come to a point where it will not be the Committee that is in disrepute and not looked upon with confidence, but the whole House.
7.19 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I had not intended to speak in this debate, so I shall be extremely brief. I am as anxious as anyone that the Select Committee system should work effectively. If it is not doing so, that must be of concern to the whole House. Equally, I have considerable sympathy for some of the points made by the hon. Member for Woking.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Workington.
Sir Terence Higgins: I am sorry. I have sympathy for the particular point he made on the matter of Whips serving on Select Committees. Having said that, I feel bound to say that a number of Committees of the House—for example, the Committee of Selection—have Labour Whips among their members. I personally have qualms about that, because there is a tendency for the Labour Whip to take rather more of a role in selecting Committee members than is the case with Conservative Whips. There have been previous debates on the matter in which I have expressed similar concerns. It is for the House itself to decide who serves on a Committee, and it will be interesting to see which way the House votes when the matter next comes up.
Having said that, I have considerable sympathy for the point which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made with regard to the position of the Committee on Members' Interests and the Privileges Committee. I have given evidence to the Nolan committee and I believe, in the light of recent experience, that that matter ought to be looked at by Nolan, and I hope that he will make recommendations. The overlap between the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests creates an unsatisfactory situation, and certainly the time taken by either of the Committees to reach a decision is of concern.
I have served on the Privileges Committee on every occasion recently except the present occasion, and it is my opinion that it is too large to operate expeditiously—not least because of the difficulty in getting all of the members in one place at one time, as so many are senior Members of this House. An appropriate compromise may be to look at the terms of reference of the two Committees, and perhaps have a specific sub-committee which could report to the Privileges Committee on investigations into matters such as the one we debated earlier today.
Having said that, I intervened on the speech of the hon. Member for Workington because I had terrible difficulty in understanding what he was saying. He said that he was using the only procedure available to him to bring the matter to the attention of House. It gradually dawned on me—it had not occurred to me when he started—that he regards having the right to disrupt a Select Committee's work as a procedure of this House. That is intrinsically an absurdity. A Committee is set up by the House, and the hon. Gentleman says that one of the procedures which Members may use is to disrupt the work that this House wishes that Committee to carry out.
402
I take the point made by the hon. Lady, the Member for Hertfordshire, North. She is a relatively new Member, for whom I have considerable respect.
Ms Eagle: My constituency is Wallasey.
Sir Terence Higgins: I was misinformed.
Mr. Heald: I represent Hertfordshire, North.
Sir Terence Higgins: I apologise. I have respect for my hon. Friend as well.
I respect the contributions which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has made to a number of debates, and I accept that she feels passionately about this subject. I am bound to say to her that Committees are set up by the House to deliberate on a matter, and their proceedings and deliberations are then published. If there is a problem, the right moment at which to raise it is when the report is brought to the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: But then the deed is done.
Sir Terence Higgins: No, the deed is not done. The matter is then before the House to consider, and the House can decide whether it agrees with the view that the Committee expresses. That is the right way to deal with the matter. To say that individual Members have the right to disrupt the work of a Committee that has been established by the House to carry out that work is intrinsically absurd.
The motion this evening is reasonable. It does not infringe the rights of Select Committees and, far from that, it seems to me wholly to facilitate their work.
7.24 pm
Mr. William Ross: As it happens, I am the only Committee member who is not a member of either of the two major parties and, to some extent, I have been a spectator of the private quarrels which seem to go back and forward between the two parties.
Since we are talking about a Committee that has a wide remit to decide the form and content of the Register, we must tread with great care on that narrow ground between what is really in the public interest and what is private business. It became clear to me during the gathering of information on Lloyd's just how easy it is to stray over the line. A great many of those who sat on the Committee at that time would agree that the Lloyd's rules had ramifications that were not immediately apparent when the rules were first drawn up.
The Committee makes recommendations as to changes in the form and content of the register.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman made a long speech, and I have little time. I shall not give way to him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are still registering syndicates—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to continue.
Mr. Ross: I will abide by your guidance, Madam Speaker. Frankly, the hon. Member for Workington

403
(Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not present during all the discussions. If he had been, he might not have made those comments.
The rules of the register change and develop over time. A consequence of that is that things that were formerly not registered now fall within the rules, and those things will certainly fall within the rules in the future as the intention behind the rules becomes more precisely defined. Sometimes the rules are applied in what seems to me as a layman a retrospective manner. The time of clarification of the rules should be the cut-off point for the declarations that Members may have to make.
The financial interests and benefits of Members of this House are treated as a rich hunting ground by the press, and by some Members, and as an opportunity for political mud-slinging. That is true of Members on both sides of the House, if I may say so.
One complaint made by members of the Committee was that there was a Conservative Whip on the Committee. I noticed that, the first or second time that matter was raised, the complaints were confined strictly to the fact that the hon. Gentleman concerned was a Whip. When I pointed out that I was a Whip also, matters developed somewhat, and they have developed considerably further this evening.
It was pointed out that the Conservative Whip would have a power of patronage that was denied to me. [Interruption.] I see the Leader of the House smiling at that, and he knows that that is correct. It may be, however, that during a debate in the House I could say to an Ulster Unionist Member that he would find great favour with his Whip if he went down a particular line. That is not likely to happen, since my right hon. and hon. Friends are strong-minded individuals, but no one objected to my presence on the Committee on the grounds that I was a Whip.
I can only assume that that was because it was understood that when I came through the door of the Committee room, I left my Whip outside the door. I believe that we all should do that, as we are members of a Committee whose reports could have a destructive effect on the integrity, character and personal standing of any individual whose conduct we are investigating. I believe that if everyone behaved in that way, some of what we see and hear might not happen.
We must be able to consider the questions before us in a calm and non-partisan manner, and to reach conclusions that are clearly understood by the House and the public. The behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington was designed deliberately to disrupt the proceedings of the Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is correct.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman agrees. I heard him say earlier that there was a leak of the draft report to The Guardian which occurred in March. However, I understand that the first disruption that he brought about was before that, so any possibility of the Committee carrying out an investigation into that matter was immediately aborted.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was in February.
Mr. Ross: Well, that is all right then. The first disruption was on 7 February, so the time scale is
404
interesting. The hon. Gentleman's disruption demonstrated a lack of faith in the integrity of Committee members.
Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to send signals to and receive replies from someone in the Press Gallery who works for The Guardian? Does that not show the real story going on?
Madam Speaker: I cannot see the Press Gallery and had not noticed that signals were being given. If that is the case, it is certainly not in order and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise such a point of order. If that is taking place, it must cease forthwith. Mr. Ross must not be interrupted further.
Mr. Ross: I was bringing my remarks to a conclusion anyway, Madam Speaker, by saying that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington demonstrates the need for the motion.
7.30 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: This has been an interesting and unusual debate. Without wishing to denigrate the debate that preceded it, this debate has probably been more important to the future of the House than the debate on the conduct of hon. Members.
I accept the motion and, if it is put to a vote, I shall vote for it and encourage my hon. Friends to support it. The motion is permissive. The decision would be made not by the Chairman or Chairperson of the Committee but by the Committee itself. It must be based on a reasonable view that the presence of a specified hon. Member, not being a member of the Committee, would obstruct business. To that extent, the motion would not stop any hon. Member attending a meeting of any Select Committee that is held in private to listen to its deliberations and take notes, because that could not be held to be obstruction. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) attended a previous meeting of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and took notes, but nobody held that to be obstruction; therefore, it forms a useful precedent.
I see no case for disrupting Committee procedures, whether they be Select or Standing Committees held in public or in private. Hon. Members can always find a suitably convenient time and place to raise any issue that they want on the Floor of the House. I remember those long distant days when we had a Labour Government—those times will soon return—and, as a humble Back Bencher, I found that I could raise any issue I chose whenever I chose to do so by using the procedures of the House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I would have had more sympathy for the motion had it referred to the disruptive conduct of a specified hon. Member. Instead, it talks about the presence of an hon. Member. I am concerned that an hon.

405
Member who attends such a Committee and behaves honourably and courteously could still be put out of the Committee's sittings.
Mr. Rooker: That would be unreasonable if the hon. Member simply attended, listened to the deliberations and took notes. That could not be held to be obstructing the Committee's proceedings.
Mr. Clappison: On the subject of raising matters on the Floor of the House, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may have given, the hon. Member for Workington raised exactly the same matters regarding membership of the Committee on the Floor of the House in a point of order last year and was given the answer that he should have raised the matter at the appropriate time by objecting to the motion? We now know that he was busy doing deals.
Mr. Rooker: My view, which is shared by many of my hon. Friends, is that the Select Committee on Members' Interests is a classic example of the failure of self-regulation by a quasi-judicial body in this House. That is one reason why I sincerely hope that the Nolan committee will get to grips with that failure. Self-regulation has been a failure ever since it started. I cannot recall the Committee ever taking a proactive view in making the Members' interests register a serious tool for the House and those outside. We hope, therefore, that the Nolan committee will get to grips with the problem. The House will rue the day that we ignore any recommendations by the Nolan committee on reforming the Members' Interests Select Committee.
As has already been said, Ministers sit on Select Committees. For example, a Treasury Minister is a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee. By convention, Ministers attend only once on appointment, but they receive all the papers. None the less, it is open to them to attend. The Attorney-General is a member of the Privileges Committee. [Interruption.] So, too, is the Leader of the House.
However, whereas Ministers sit on Committees in their departmental capacity, Whips are part of the House's business management and deal with the discipline of party management of their party. They are wholly different animals from departmental Ministers. Anyone can read the rules of the House. Nothing stops the Government placing a departmental Minister on any departmental Select Committee if they choose to do so. Nothing in the rules prevents that. By convention, the Government do not do so but, by convention, they never put Whips on the Members' Interests Select Committee. The matter must therefore be tidied up so that we know which Ministers of the Crown are eligible to serve on investigatory Committees of the House. That serious matter must be dealt with.
I do not wish to go into the details of the incident in question, because the Members' Interests Select Committee has an inquiry under way. I do not know whether it conducts inquiries in tandem, but I have reason to believe that other inquiries are mounting up behind it. On the inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington disrupted and on which he has allegedly prevented the Committee from making a report to the House because only one witness out of three has been called to give evidence, subject to how that has been
406
handled, my Front-Bench colleagues and I will seriously consider advising the parliamentary Labour party as a whole to withdraw complete co-operation and participation from that Select Committee if it is clear to us that a legitimate inquiry has not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion because there has been a whitewash. That matter may be overtaken by the Nolan inquiry, but if there is a whitewash—in this case, there are prima facie grounds for believing that there will be—we shall play no part in it.
Mr. Lewis: I am one of those Committee members who, by consensus, has been diligent. I am considering my position because of what has happened over the past several weeks.
My hon. Friend said earlier that hon. Members could raise matters by some device or other on the Floor of the House or elsewhere. Over the past few weeks, all Committee members who have held an alternative view have felt inhibited by our responsible attitude towards privilege and the amount of information that we have in our hands. We are behaving responsibly by not using those devices. Will my hon. Friend take that on board?
Mr. Rooker: I fully accept the constraints under which my hon. Friends have been placed, which is why this difficulty has arisen. If it appears that that Committee has been unable to function because of interference by Government business managers, we shall have no part of it. Only a bent and twisted Government would seek to manipulate investigative Committees of the House.
The Labour Opposition know exactly where we are coming from and how we want to reform the system. That does not mean that we must put up with manipulation of existing procedures. This matter is extremely serious, and, subject to what happens in the Committee and the approval of the motion tonight, we may reach that conclusion. It is not being done in haste, but we consider the matter to be extremely serious and are disturbed by the way in which the Government have behaved.
7.40 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, as a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I strongly endorse the arguments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who serves on the Committee with me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
What the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done is wrong. I appreciate that he holds strong opinions about the matter, but it must be wrong for any Member of the House to override the procedures of the House and take it on himself to decide the way in which Committees operate. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, the Select Committee has been obstructed.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to respect the privacy of the deliberations of the Select Committee. However, by the end of his speech I had reached the conclusion that we would have had more privacy if we had conducted our proceedings in the middle of Trafalgar square, because he blatantly used his speech as an opportunity to ventilate as much as he could.

407
Turning to the merits of what the hon. Gentleman says—one does not need to do so for long—he undermined his own case about the membership of the Committee by not taking—
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clappison: No. I do not have time.
The hon. Member for Workington undermined his own case by not taking advantage of the proceedings—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 April].
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 35.

Division No. 133]

[7.40 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Amess, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Arbuthnot, James

Hague, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hargreaves, Andrew

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Hawkins, Nick

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Hayes, Jerry

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Heald, Oliver

Baldry, Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bates, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Beresford, Sir Paul

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Booth, Hartley

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Horam, John

Bowis, John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Brandreth, Gyles

Jack, Michael

Bright, Sir Graham

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Burns, Simon

Jones, Roberts B (W Hertfdshr)

Butler, Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Carrington, Matthew

Knight Greg (Derby N)

Clappison, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lidington, David

Coe, Sebastian

Lightbown, David

Congdon, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Conway, Derek

Luff, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

MacKay, Andrew

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Maclean, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Malone, Gerald

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mandelson, Peter

Dover, Den

Mans, Keith

Durant, Sir Anthony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Merchant, Piers

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Monro, Sir Hector

Evennett, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Faber, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Norris, Steve

Forth, Eric

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Foster, Don (Bath)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Page, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Paice, James

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

French, Douglas

Richards, Rod

Garnier, Edward

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Gillan, Cheryl

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Rooker, Jeff

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

408

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Sackville, Tom

Trend, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Shersby, Michael

Ward, John

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wells, Bowen

Soames, Nicholas

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whittingdale, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Widdecombe, Ann

Spring, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sproat, Iain

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Streeter, Gary

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. David Willetts.

NOES

Barnes, Harry

Livingstone, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Mackinlay, Andrew

Campbell-Savours, D N

MacShane, Denis

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Madden, Max

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pickthall, Colin

Eagle, Ms Angela

Pike, Peter L

Enright, Derek

Rendel, David

Etherington, Bill

Sedgemore, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Vaz, Keith

Gerrard, Neil

Wallace, James

Godman, Dr Norman A

Welsh, Andrew

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wicks, Malcolm

Hanson, David

Winnick, David

Hardy, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Mr. Piara S. Khabra.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That if any select committee, or sub-committee thereof, considers that the presence at a meeting, or part of a meeting, of that committee to which the public are not admitted of any specified Member of the House not nominated to that committee would obstruct the business of the committee, it shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Health Board Funding (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
7.50 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As you, Madam Speaker, will be aware, after several attempts I have managed to raise on the Adjournment the subject of funding for health boards in Scotland and its implications for the pay of those who work in the national health service. I am pleased to see that, although there is a fairly small number in the Chamber this evening, there are more hon. Members present than is normal for Adjournment debates, which are often attended by only the hon. Member who has the Adjournment and the Minister. I hope that that reflects the genuine interest of everyone present in the implications for pay of those who work in the national health service.
I must declare an interest: I serve on the parliamentary panel of the Royal College of Nursing. I am also in regular contact with the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and other groups involved in health. But that having been said, I think that I speak as an individual and someone who reflects the views of all our constituents.
All of us, irrespective of our standing in society, our income or where we come from, need the national health service. We must recognise the dedication and commitment of those who work in that organisation. We are all indebted to them for the work that they do. I speak as someone who went through a long illness and appreciated the work done by the nurses and others in the hospital. I am also a daughter with an aged mother who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and I recognise the contribution of the staff to people such as my mother.
In tonight's debate we are talking about the values and principles of the society that we want to see. It is often said that nursing is a vocation, which has somehow become almost a derogatory term. We give those with a vocation a pat on the head and a lump of sugar, but do not, as a society, recognise the commitment that they give to individuals. They are people who carry out tasks that are important to the well-being of those we love and those we want to see cared for. We should look at ourselves, as the House of Commons and as representatives of the public, and ask whether people who take a vocational job should be dismissed as unimportant and not worthy of national recognition.
I have raised the subject in tonight's debate because I have seen what has happened over the past several weeks in the context of the discussion on the pay of nurses, midwives, health visitors and others in the health service. It is essentially a Scottish debate because I have made specific reference to the health boards in Scotland in recognition of the different administrative system in Scotland. But the principles about which I want to speak, and which underpin the debate, are UK-wide. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will accept that rationale of the comments that I shall make.
410
A review body report was published on 9 February. It recommended a two-tier approach to salaries. It was the review body's 11th report and it was the first time that the Royal College of Nursing or any other organisation had rejected a review body's report. The reason that the college rejected it was the recommendation of a two-tier approach.
What was being offered was that 1 per cent. of a pay increase would be guaranteed as a national increase. The assumption was that it would be directly funded by the Government. But the reality was that the 1 per cent. was not being directly funded by Government, but had to be met by the trust boards—so many of our organisations are now represented by trust boards. The figure was going to be part of the payments that were to be made by the trust boards.
It is important to remind ourselves of that, because many people thought that the Government were directly funding the 1 per cent. and the trust boards had to find another 2 per cent. or whatever. But the figure was part of the final negotiations on the national health service funding system. Any additional funding had to come from the trusts, along with that 1 per cent.
Many people regard that aspect of the Government's policy as the beginning of an attitude that will lead to local pay negotiations in many professions and many trades where we would expect to have national recognition of the contribution made by those who work in them. If we add to that the fact that the trusts will, in future, theoretically be able to ensure that negotiations relating to conditions of service—such as sick leave, sick pay, annual leave and hours of work—could be included, we realise that national standards are being demeaned. If all aspects of negotiations and discussions of the conditions in which our health service workers operate are put alongside pay levels, we see that, even if they are diluted in one trust, the idea of equality of standards and equality of service delivery has been destroyed once and for all within what we call a national health service.
An editorial in the Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror of 8 to 14 March 1995 states:
"We also predict that within one or two years, the national element will have withered away altogether."
Were I to be suddenly afflicted by appendicitis in London or Lossiemouth, I would expect the same standards of treatment to be allocated to me as a member of the national health service. Wherever our nurses, doctors, health visitors and midwives happen to work, we should ensure that they are given equal recognition for the service that they offer us.
In answer to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister of State on 29 March 1995. he told me that funding to health boards in Scotland had risen in real terms over the past year by 3.9 per cent. and, apparently, the projection for 1995–96 is that it is to rise by 3.6 per cent.
I do not dispute the figures, but they do not represent a standard pattern throughout the health boards in Scotland. In my area, the Grampian health board will receive a funding increase of only 2.66 per cent. How will areas which are receiving an increase of less than 3 per cent. pay their staff the salaries that they seek?

411
It would cost the Moray health trust £600,000 to pay the 3 per cent. pay increase which the nurses have requested and which I endorse.
The Minister will probably respond by saying that efficiency savings are required within the health service. The efficiency savings target in Scotland this year is 2.75 per cent. or £75 million. A 3 per cent. pay increase across the board for the staff to whom I have referred tonight would cost £23.2 million. When we compare that sum with the efficiency savings target of £75 million, we can see how little it would cost to ensure that our health service workers are paid the salaries that they so obviously deserve.
What does it mean when we talk about efficiency savings within the health service? In reality, it means a reduction in all kinds of services. Services within the NHS have already been pared to the bone. Are we now expected to drain the marrow from those services?
What efficiency savings does the Minister envisage making in Scotland while maintaining the current standard of service delivery? What would happen if health service staff asked to be paid for the overtime they work—overtime that is not recognised at present? Those committed and dedicated staff work that overtime because no nurse, midwife or health visitor will be dictated to by the clock. None of them would walk away from a case because they had already worked an eight-hour day. We must recognise their commitment and their dedication.
Staff turnover among nurses in Scotland continues to rise, and last year it increased from 12 per cent. to 19 per cent. There is also a shortage of student and trainee nurses. Between 1988 and 1992, the number of student nurses in Scotland fell by 35 per cent. Those figures were supplied by the Department of Employment, whose labour force survey also showed that unemployment in the nursing profession is just 1.7 per cent.
Against that background, variations in local pay deals will set nurse against nurse and trust against trust. I represent a rural area where vast distances must be travelled. A local Lobby correspondent recently asked me why nurses in Moray should receive the same pay as nurses in London, when the cost of living is so different. I argue that the dedication of nurses and the care that they provide is equal throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Low wages must not be introduced to the rural areas of Scotland.
The Royal College of Nursing, to which I referred earlier, does not accept that increases in nurses' pay should be self-financing or funded through productivity improvements. Will there be arguments in favour of performance-related pay for nurses? How does one measure the productivity of a nurse, midwife, health visitor or someone working in the area of community care? A broader range of factors must be considered—I return to the issue of principles and values in society—including recruitment and retention, fair pay comparisons, morale and projections for future demand.
The Minister will be aware that, of the 46 trusts in Scotland, only four have made offers so far in the context of pay negotiations. In Greenock—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is in the Chamber—there has
412
been an offer of 2.5 per cent. Grampian Health Care in my area has made an offer of 2.83 per cent., but that is conditional upon the acceptance of a trust contract. The Southern general hospital in Glasgow has offered 3 per cent., 1 per cent. of which has unspecified conditions attached. North Ayrshire has offered 3 per cent. with no conditions attached. Only four out of the 46 Scottish trust boards have made offers, two of which are conditional. What conditions are people being asked to accept in fulfilling their duties to society?
By 13 April this year, 127 out of almost 500 trusts had made local pay offers. Of those, 80 per cent. offered an increase of 3 per cent. or more. I think that we must accept that most trusts wish to recognise the level of demand and the merits of the case that has been advanced. Some 75 per cent. of the 3 per cent. minimum offers are seemingly without strings: they are not conditional upon the acceptance of trust contracts, employment or changes to conditions of service, leads or allowances.
The Scottish Office has not issued any guidance to trusts in Scotland about local pay, unless it has done so in the last few hours. It is allowing individual trusts to make their own arrangements at their own pace—which may explain why a relatively small number of offers have been made in Scotland so far. I think that it is unfair and unjust that health service workers do not know what the trusts are prepared to offer.
I contrast that situation with what has happened in England and Wales. Ken Jarrold, the national health service executive and director of human resources, wrote to all trust chief executives in England and Wales on 11 April. He said:
"Ministers have expressed concern that there have not been more pay offers".
He continued:
"It is very important that all employers give an early indication of their intentions … It would be helpful for staff … to be made aware of the local pay offers being made by employers."
Why has no instruction or advice along those lines been offered to the chief executives and executive and non-executive directors of trusts in Scotland? In responding to the debate tonight, I hope that the Minister will assure me that he intends to offer similar advice to Scottish trusts and that he will clearly endorse the argument for a 3 per cent. pay increase. He must make it clear that the Government recognise the worth of health service staff.
I believe that health service workers would be more interested in the colour of the money that the trusts intend to offer than in the colour of the BMWs which are driven by the administrators and managers who are not involved in service delivery. It is critical in this debate that we argue the case on behalf of the committed and dedicated people to whom many of us owe our lives. We must have a proper sense of values.
8.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing this debate on the Adjournment. She has been assiduous in her concern in this area, and she recently secured another Adjournment debate about community care.

413
I welcome the opportunities that the debate offers, not least because it allows me to acknowledge the valuable work performed not only by nurses, midwives and health visitors, but by all those who work in the national health service in Scotland. I pay tribute to their commitment. A very distinguished hospital, the Western general, is located in my constituency. It is involved with many areas of specialist care and I am full of admiration for the work that is performed there. The Scottish Office fully recognises that fact also.
As the hon. Lady will no doubt be aware, we allocate £4 billion per year to funding the national health service in Scotland. It represents almost one third of the resources available to the Secretary of State for Scotland and provides clear evidence, if such evidence is required, of the importance and the priority that the Government continue to attach to the provision of health care services.
Since 1979, we have increased the annual level of resources available for the NHS in Scotland from £1 billion to today's figure of £4.1 billion. That represents a real-terms growth of more than 53 per cent. and, despite competing financial pressures from other quarters, the Government have continued to honour their 1992 manifesto pledge to a year-on-year increase in the level of real resources committed to the national health service in Scotland.
As I just stated, for the first time, net expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will exceed £4 billion in 1995–96. In broad terms, just over £1 billion will go towards family health services and centrally funded services, but by far the largest element—just over £3 billion—will go to hospital and community health services.
Some £2.5 billion of that £3 billion has been allocated to health boards through a standard and long-accepted weighted capitation formula. In essence, the formula weights individual health board populations for age and sex, relative health care need and geographical differences in the costs of providing services. The aim is to ensure that, across Scotland, there is equal opportunity of access to health care for people at equal risk.
By now, in respect of 1995–96, most of the £2.5 billion allocated to health boards—as purchasers of health care services—will be committed to NHS trusts—as providers—through service contracts. The trusts' contract prices will, of course, include provision for pay together with the trusts' other operating overheads.
On whether health boards—and hence the NHS service as a whole—have sufficient resources to meet possible pay awards, the short answer is yes. The total resources available to health boards through their general allocations and expected cash-releasing efficiencies are, as I have just said, £2.5 billion. That is an increase of just under £130 million or 5.4 per cent. on their 1994–95 provision. Those additional resources are required to meet the cost implications of demographic change, medical advance and, of course, pay and price increases.
The Government's policy is that public sector pay must be met from within efficiency gains.
Mrs. Ewing: I hear all that the Minister is saying in the context of those complex figures, but, basically,
414
does he believe that throughout Scotland every worker—nurses, midwives or health visitors—should have access to the same pay increase? If that does not happen, how does he intend to cope with the fact that nurse will be set against nurse and trust against trust?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall explain the Government's position exactly. The hon. Lady asked specifically about guidance. The management executive of the NHS in Scotland will issue guidance to the trusts on local pay within the next week and that will encourage the trusts in Scotland to make offers and point out the review body's anticipation that increases will range between 1.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. I shall return to that in more detail in a moment.
Health boards have been set a minimum cash-releasing efficiency target of 2.75 per cent. for 1995–96. That equates to some £70 million, which in itself amounts to just over 4 per cent. of the estimated pay bill for 1994–95. An element of that £70 million will be required to meet demographic change, medical advance and general price increases, but with total additional funds of almost £130 million in 1995–96, health boards have been given sufficient resources and have sufficient flexibility within those resources to budget for and meet all potential cost increases.
I now refer to the actual pay awards for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Recommendations on their pay are made by an independent pay review body, as the hon. Lady appreciates. For 1995–96, the review body recommended a two-tier approach, comprising a 1 per cent. increase in national salary rates and local negotiations on pay and/or conditions.
The Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body recommended that 1 per cent. increase, as I mentioned. The review body also recommended further local negotiations on pay. Both national and local increases are to be effective from 1 April 1995. On local negotiations, the review body did not prescribe an upper limit—and that is most significant—but it expected that in the majority of cases, the outcome of local negotiations plus the 1 per cent. increase in national rates would provide improvements for the staff concerned, totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent.
Regarding those local negotiations on pay, it is of particular note that Whitley councils, representing all the 40 per cent. of NHS staff not covered by review bodies, have already accepted a provision that enables an element of their pay to be determined locally.
The review body believes that trusts should be able to reach agreements in local negotiations. It did not prescribe an upper limit, but expected that in the majority of cases the outcome of local negotiations plus the 1 per cent. increase would provide improvements totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent.
It must be made clear that the review body is quite independent. Let me also make it clear that the Scottish Office and the Government hold nurses, midwives and health visitors in the very highest regard. It was largely because of that regard that we set up their independent review body in 1983 and we have accepted its recommendations every year since.
If one went entirely by the coverage of the matter in the media, the impression would be gained that the figures in the recommendations were somewhat arbitrary and that they suddenly emerged in the public domain

415
from nowhere and without any basis. I am therefore glad of the opportunity to dispel misconceptions and mythologies. The best way of doing it is to draw attention to the facts.
This year, the review body again considered the main issues that had influenced its recommendations in previous years. Those issues are: first, the need to recruit and retain sufficient staff of the right quality in the long term as well as the short term; secondly, the need to maintain their morale and motivation at levels necessary to secure provision of the level and quality of service required; thirdly, the need for nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and the public to feel that the nursing staff had been treated fairly; and fourthly, the need to avoid imposing an unfair burden on the taxpayer. The review body explained that those issues continued to be important to it as indicators of the adequacy of pay levels for nursing staff overall.
Evidence on those issues was submitted to the review body by the Health Departments, including the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. Evidence was also submitted by the staff side of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council and other individual staff organisations, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Scottish Health Visitors Association and Unison.
For its present report, the review body made a number of visits to hospitals to see the work of staff on whose pay it makes recommendations and to listen to their views on pay issues and related matters.
All those issues, as well as local pay, were carefully considered by the review body before it reached its conclusions and made its recommendations.
We fully accept the review body's recommendations. I regret talk of industrial action, as we all do. It is singularly regrettable that such talk has arisen simply because the Government have again accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review body.
There is nothing unusual in the Government having accepted the recommendations. We have accepted all the previous recommendations, which have resulted, for example, in nurses' pay rising in the past six years by 78 per cent. compared with some 48 per cent. in the private sector and 49 per cent. in the whole economy. Recognition also needs to be given to the fact that in seven of the 11 years since they have had an independent pay review body, nursing staff's pay awards exceeded those for doctors and dentists.
In accepting the current recommendations, the Government recognise that the way forward is through local negotiation. The way for nurses, midwives and health visitors to achieve fair pay increases that reflect their value to the NHS is through local negotiation, not confrontation. At the same time, local pay is a vital part of achieving a more efficient NHS, much better at responding to the needs of patients.
Mrs. Ewing: I think that we all accept the importance of the review body—no one is arguing against its retention—but surely even the Government must recognise that we are talking about the first report out of 11 that has been rejected by serious organisations. That must cause some concern, even on the Treasury Bench.
416
The Minister mentioned the motivation and morale of staff. I have never found motivation and morale lower. I say that having read speeches that I made in the House in March 1979 in the days of the Labour Government, when there was an argument about whether to establish a review body.
The Minister talks about the need for local negotiation. Is he prepared to say clearly that in no circumstances will local conditions be attached to pay negotiations in future? That is one of the strongest fears within the nursing profession and all the other professions that are involved in the discussion.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot say to the hon. Lady that there will be no variation anywhere within Britain.
The hon. Lady talked about the weighted capitation formula and whether the area that she represents has been properly treated. It has. There is no question of Grampian health board having been unfairly treated or disadvantaged in the 1995–96 allocation round.
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall continue with the point that I was making; the hon. Lady may intervene again in a moment.
In keeping with normal practice, the health board's general cash allocation has been calculated on a weighted capitation formula. In short, the formula determines the board's target share of national resources that are available on the basis of its relative need for funds. That relative need is determined by taking account of the age and sex composition of each board's resident population and, most important, the relative health needs of the population group.
The measurement used for determining health need is the standardised mortality ratio for those under 65 years. That, in effect, acts as a proxy for morbidity by contrasting the number of actual deaths in a board area within that age group with the expected number of deaths. The average standardised mortality rate for Scotland is set at one, and Grampian's rating is 0.82. In other words, the population in Grampian is presumed to be healthier than the national average. That is why the board received not its 10.1 per cent. pro rata share of Scotland's general allocation provision but a target share of 9.36 per cent. Despite that, over the past three years the board has continued to receive an allocation increase above the national average percentage increase for 1995–96. That has been worth almost £500,000.
Mrs. Ewing: I accept that vital factors work in Grampian. Has the Minister, however, or anyone within the Scottish Office, when deciding the allocation of funding, considered referral rates from, for example, West Unit as it was previously called? I know that many general practitioners in the area that I represent have not referred patients to Aberdeen royal infirmary or to Raigmore. They prefer to keep them at home and within travelling distance to monitor them for 24 or 48 hours. That has led to a non-recognition of the additional burden that GPs have taken on in rural areas such as my constituency.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In terms of capitation, the health needs of Moray, considerable as they may be, must properly be taken into account. I shall certainly examine the detailed point that the hon. Lady

417
has made and write to her. However, if we take the west central belt of Scotland, a part of which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) represents, we see that health needs indicators are higher than in the hon. Lady's constituency. The Scottish Office is properly entitled to take that into account in the allocation. I must stress that allocation is carried out strictly according to formula. It is not done at the discretion of Ministers. The Scottish Office follows the formula that is laid down.
A strong motive in our NHS reforms is that, the nearer to patients decisions are taken, the better they are likely to be. We believe that that also applies to pay. It is our view that responsibility for devising pay arrangements should, like other aspects of management, be delegated wherever possible to those who are responsible for the delivery of services. It is for that reason that the Health Departments submitted evidence to the review body not to recommend an across-the-board increase.
We suggested that, instead, the review body should assist in the introduction of local arrangements by leaving employers with maximum scope for local action. By providing for a degree of local negotiation, the review body has endorsed and encouraged the aim of introducing local pay into the NHS. I hope, therefore, that nurses, midwives and health visitors will participate fully in the local negotiations to secure pay settlements that are both entirely fair to them and affordable to their employers: I stress, both fair and affordable.
I fully expect NHS employers in Scotland to approach the local pay negotiations in a responsible manner. The local pay increase must be seen to be fair. Local pay is not about delivering very low pay awards. That would be rightly regarded by staff and the public as unfair.
Public perception of the pay of nursing staff was one of the matters taken into account by the review body. The issues of fairness and comparability were considered. In doing so, it commented that there is a wider sense in which the pay of nursing staff should be "felt fair" by the community as a whole, as well as by the staff themselves, and that is central to the job that the review body is required to do. The issue was therefore considered by the review body, and that informed its recommendations.
While the local pay increase must be seen as fair, it must also be affordable. This issue was addressed by the review body, which recognised that where some element of pay is determined locally, affordability for pay purposes will also need to relate to the financial circumstances of individual trusts. In these circumstances, affordability will be influenced by trusts' success in negotiating contracts with purchasers, including some outside the NHS, as well as by their ability to control their costs.
How should this matter now be taken forward? At national level, talks are continuing in the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council on an agreement that would promulgate the 1 per cent. increase in national salary rates and facilitate local negotiations on the additional payments.
At local level, the vast majority of NHS trusts in Scotland have concluded their discussions with various NHS purchasers regarding the costs and quality of service that they wish for 1995–96. Trusts in Scotland can now ascertain their income for 1995–96, and I expect them to
418
engage in local negotiation with bodies representing staff on the implementation of the review body recommendations. The outcome of the negotiations in any particular trust will be a matter for that trust and its respective staff interests.
I appreciate that there are anxieties and fears, which is only natural when there are changes to pay determination mechanisms. Having to negotiate locally on an element of pay is a challenge, but it should also be regarded as an opportunity.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters about the readiness of the service to take on the job of local pay bargaining. The review body explained that it understood and had some sympathy with that concern. It concluded, however, that the necessary confidence and expertise will be fully developed across the NHS only when the parties are confronted by the actual process of making local pay arrangements. That is what the service, management and staff representatives alike now need to do.
Implicit in all that I have said is that pay is not an end in itself. That is well known to all those who work in the NHS in Scotland, where the objective is to deliver the highest standard of patient care.
Mrs. Ewing: I shall not reopen the argument about the establishment of trusts—that argument is in the past. Is the Minister convinced that the trusts, which are essentially in their infancy, are capable of negotiating and dealing with issues such as pay and conditions for their staff?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I am. I should take the opportunity to say that in terms of funding generally in Scotland, health expenditure is 23 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than in England. That is significant. The boards in Scotland have substantial resources and I would expect them to deliver awards that are both fair and affordable taking all the relevant circumstances into account.
This has been a useful debate and it has been good that so many hon. Members from Scotland have attended, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is keenly interested in the matter, and the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow.
I should like to make several points to draw the strands of the debate together. Since 1979, resources available to the NHS in Scotland have grown from £1 billion to £4.1 billion. Since 1979, resources within those figures available to the hospital and community health service in Scotland have increased from £801 million to £3,146 million. Between 1979 and 1994, overall staffing in the NHS increased by 4.5 per cent. However, in that period, the nursing work force increased by more than 20 per cent., and the qualified nursing work force by 34 per cent.
Mrs. Ewing: I want the Minister to pin carefully the argument that Ministers propound so often—that somehow or other the Scottish national health service is subsidised and given additional funding. Does he agree that, in the five years since 1986, in England and Wales additional funding has been 18.2 per cent., whereas in Scotland it has been only 14.6 per cent.?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement in England this year, of 1 per cent., is greater than that in Scotland, which is 0.35 per cent. Scotland has had a

419
substantial increase and, as I have mentioned, health expenditure per head is 23 per cent. higher than in England. The hon. Lady would not wish us to be put on the same basis as England, because health expenditure in Scotland would be cut to an extent that she would hardly have dreamed possible.
Before making its current recommendations, the nurses' review body considered evidence from both staff organisations and management. We have implemented in full all the recommendations of the nurses' review body
420
since its inception. This has contributed to an increase in nurses' salaries of 53 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Resources are available to meet the increases recommended by the review body.
Taken together, those points surely demonstrate our continuing commitment to the provision of very high-quality NHS health care in Scotland, and they recognise the contribution made to this by the broad group of nursing staff.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Caravans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with the Valuation Office reasons for the change in the basis for valuation of caravans; what representations he has received from caravan owners relating to this decision by the Valuation Office; and if he will make a statement. [18668]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received many representations from caravan site operators and some from owners of individual caravans about the approach which has been adopted by the Valuation Office to the valuation, of caravan parks for the purposes of the 1995 non-domestic rating revaluation. I understand that the agency is discussing the issues further with representatives of caravan site operators.

  Wildlife Imports (Vietnam)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the importation of wildlife into the United Kingdom from Vietnam; and what steps he will take to stop the practice. [19828]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has received representations on the import into the United Kingdom of crab-eating monkeys from Vietnam. The UK and Vietnam are parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which regulates international trade in wildlife. Under CITES, crab-eating monkeys can be imported into the UK from Vietnam, provided certain strict conditions are met. However, no such imports have been authorised in recent years.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19842]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 19 April 1995]: My Department does not keep central records of individual purchases. Its policy, set out in its environmental purchasing guide "Selling to DOE", is to purchase joinery, furniture, and fittings manufactured only from wood produced from sustainably managed forests.

DEFENCE

  RAF Logistics Command
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the logistics support services organisation of the Royal Air Force. [20451]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Air Force logistics support services organisation is part of Headquarters Logistics Command, and is responsible for providing a range of engineering and supply logistic support services to the Ministry of Defence, overseas Governments and the UK defence industry. It has been decided that the logistics support services organisation is to be considered for defence agency status under the next steps procedures. An entry to this effect will appear in the May 1995 edition of the market testing bulletin.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed rationalisation of Headquarters Logistics Command. [20481]

  Mr Soames
  As part of the "Front Line First" process, my Department has consulted thoroughly with trade unions and local authorities closely associated with RAF Logistics Command on the proposal to rationalise its headquarters' structure.

  No issues have been raised which call into question the viability of the proposal and I have therefore decided that it should proceed as set out in the consultative document, which was issued on 19 January 1995. The effect of this rationalisation is the creation of some 400 civilian posts in the Headquarters Logistics Command at various levels.

  The details of the new civilian posts involved are being issued to trade unions for further local consultation and discussion.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Medical Services' secondary care organisation. [20452]

  Mr. Soames
  Following my announcement in the House on 8 December,Official Report, columns 304–305, in which I confirmed the recommendations made by the "Front Line First" medical study, it has been decided that the Defence Medical Services' secondary care organisation is to be considered as a candidate for agency status under the next steps procedures. An entry to this effect will appear in the May 1995 market testing bulletin and I should welcome comments from interested parties. These should be sent by 9 June to Mr. J. P. Green, head of the secondary care agency review team, Ministry of Defence, Room 118, Lacon house, Theobalds road, London WC1X 8RY.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with the selection of financial advisers for the proposed transfer of his Department's married quarters estate to the private sector. [20482]

  Mr. Soames
  I am glad to announce that, following a competitive selection process, we have chosen NatWest Markets for this role.

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the details of the methodology for transforming the Occupational Health Service into Trident Medical Services. [18915]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Occupational Health and Safety Agency has not been transformed into Trident Medical Services. Previously the Occupational Health Service, it remains an executive agency of the Cabinet Office following a prior options review in 1994.

  Trident Medical Services is a private sector provider of medical treatment.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the suspension and subsequent resignation of the director of the civil service occupational health scheme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and if he will make a statement on the impact this has had on the formation of a successor company and the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to those employed by the scheme within the AWE as at 31 March.

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  The senior medical officer employed by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency was suspended from duty on 20 March pending investigation of matters' which had that day come to light regarding the tendering process for the contract to provide occupational health services to Hunting-BRAE, trading as AWE plc. It appeared that he had become a director of the company awarded the contract. He resigned voluntarily and with immediate effect on 23 March before any formal investigations had taken place.

  His resignation has no effect on the future of the OHSA. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to the transfer of relevant employees from OHSA to Trident Medical Services Ltd. This follows from AWE's decision to award the contract for provision of occupational health services to Trident.

  Sundstrand Corporation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds his Department has selected Sundstrand of Rockford Corporation Illinois to supply gas-powered turbine engines for Spearfish torpedoes; what was the nature of the competition for this programme; which United Kingdom contractors were invited to tender; what offset arrangements have been agreed; and if he will make a statement. [18705]

  Mr. Freeman
  The choice of Sundstrand as engine supplier was made by GEC-Marconi in 1981 as the designers of Spearfish. The only competitive alternative was also of US manufacture. The intention had been fully to compete the main production order of the torpedo, including the engine under licence, but the declining numbers required has meant this has not proved to be feasible. However, maximum competition at the subcontractor level was implemented instead. Some 25 per cent. in value of the engine was competed between three UK contenders and Microturbo of Fareham was successful.

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of warheads which will be deployed on each Trident submarine; and when the decision was taken on this matter. [19329]

  Mr. Soames
  As announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his speech to the Centre for Defence Studies at King's college, London on 16 November 1993, each Trident submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads and many will carry significantly fewer.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the future costs of decontaminating and clean-up of military nuclear production and operational facilities, including radioactive waste management and disposal; and if he will commission a study along the lines of the United States Energy Department study, estimating the cold war mortgage of radioactive contamination arising from the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme. [19317]

  Mr. Soames
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose details of planned spending associated with the defence nuclear programme. The importance and costs of radiological and other forms of decontamination are, however, fully recognised as part of future defence planning, and adequate funding will be made available. Studies already conducted or to be undertaken will continue to assist in refining the estimates of the costs of radioactive waste management and disposal.

  HMS Repulse and HMS Renown
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the decommissioning date for(a) HMS Repulse and (b) HMS Renown. [19326]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to comment in detail on the strategic submarine ballistic nuclear operational programme.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for HMS Renown being laid up at the Clyde submarine base, Faslane since June 1994. [19328]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Renown returned to Faslane in June 1994 with a minor defect. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the material state of individual submarines.

  WE177 Free-fall Bomb
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made in the implementation of plans to withdraw from service by 2007 the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. [19332]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 4 April,Official Report, column 1097.

  Portland Naval base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future sale of the Portland naval base. [19167]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence announced the sale of Portland naval base to Portland Port Ltd. on 6 April. Portland Port Ltd. is a Dorset-based company and we believe it offers the best long-term prospect for the local community and for reuse of the naval base.

  Porton Down Volunteers' Children
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, columns 77–78, what reports his Department has received of children of ex-Porton Down service volunteers being born with a disability; and if he will make a statement. [19272]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. John Chisholm to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 18 April 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what reports his Department has received of children of ex-Porton Down Service volunteers being born with a disability has been passed to me as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to reply since this now includes the former Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Agency.
  2. The Ministry of Defence has received no reports of any children of ex-Porton Down Service volunteers being born with disabilities.
  3. It is important to bear in mind that disabilities at birth occur in the general population and, whilst every such birth is regretted, there is no statistical evidence to indicate a higher level of birth defects in the children of Service families, including ex-Porton Down service volunteers, compared with the general population.

  Decommissioned Ships
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current condition of HMS Kent, HMS Hermione and HMS Jupiter and the prospects for their sale; and if he will make a statement. [19304]

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Kent, HMS Jupiter and HMS Hermione are at present lying decommissioned in Portsmouth naval base, preparatory to their future offer for sale to the commercial scrap market. Despite strenuous efforts by the Disposal Sales Agency, none of these ships has attracted an overseas buyer for further operational use. There does, however, appear to be a flourishing commercial market for scrap metal recovery.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of the estate agents and consultants who have advised his Department on the sale of surplus land and buildings over the last five years. [19282]

  Mr. Soames
  Records of the names of the estate agents and consultants who have advised my Department on the sale of surplus land and buildings over the last five years are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Navy Staff
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian Navy personnel have lost jobs in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [19157]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of UK-based civilian staff made redundant from the Navy department in each financial year since 1986–87, the earliest date for which records were kept centrally, is as follows:

  1986–87: 1,129

  1987–88: 321

  1988–89: 311

  1989–90: 400

  1990–91: 251

  1991–92: 213

  1992–93: 249

  1993–94: 587

  11994–95: 635

  1up to end of February 1995

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on careers counselling for naval personnel who have lost their jobs in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [19159]

  Mr. Soames
  No separate record is kept of the cost of resettlement advice which has been given to naval personnel who left on redundancy.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) of 31 March,Official Report, column 872, if he will give the number and location of service personnel and civilians employed in press and public relations and public relations support posts overseas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of service personnel and civilians employed in press and public relations and public relations support posts overseas is 22. Posts are located in Belize, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Germany and the former Yugoslavia.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if staff on secondment to the Defence Export Services Organisation may simultaneously work for or offer consultancy services to companies in the private sector. [19436]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the conditions of service issued on secondment no officer may:

  (a) engage at any time in private activity which would require attendance during working hours or in any way impair his or her usefulness as public servant.

  (b) engage in any occupation or undertaking which might in any way conflict with the interests of the Ministry of Defence or be inconsistent with his or her position as a public servant.

  It is a condition of the secondment that the secondee does not engage in any such activity, occupation or

  227
  undertaking without the consent of the permanent secretary, MOD.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the level of bonuses to be paid for the financial year 1994–95 to the(a) head, (b) offset adviser and (c) international finance adviser of the Defence Export Services Organisation. [19435]

  Mr. Freeman
  On the position of the Head of the Defence Export Services Organisation, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 30 November 1994,Official Report, columns 777–78. The offset adviser is on secondment to MOD and any bonus is a matter for his company and not for the department. The international finance adviser is on a fixed-term appointment as a civil servant and is eligible for the normal civil service performance-related pay arrangements. It is not the practice to comment on the pay of individual officers.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1994 to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson),Official Report, column 778, if he will name the current offset adviser and international finance adviser at the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will give (a) the companies from which they are seconded, (b) the duration of their contracts, (c) any bonuses to which they are entitled and (d) the number

  £million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Gross Expenditure

  9.97

  10.25

  11.57

  29.99

  31.87

  Receipts by DESO

  (22.20)

  (26.24)

  (29.20)

  (18.94)

  (19.98)

  (12.23)

  (15.99)

  (17.63)

  11.05

  11.89

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 include Disposal receipts for the Army, RAF and Navy. These receipts were disaggregated to the appropriate areas from 1991 and no longer fall to the DESO budget.

  2. Brackets indicate receipts.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many competitive tendering exercises carried out by his Department in each of the last two years were caught by the provisions of the public services directive but were not subsequently advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in compliance with the relevant regulations. [19228]

  Mr. Freeman
  All requirements falling within the scope of the EU services directive where there is an obligation to advertise are customarily advertised in the prescribed manner in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities. Records of exact numbers of advertisements are not kept.

  Arms Sales, Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exports of weapons there have been from Britain to Sierra Leone in the past five years. [18872]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes),Official Report, column 501, on 28 November 1994.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether armed forces personnel who hunt are liable for 228
  of hours per week they are contracted to work for the organisation. [19433]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Offset adviser: Mr. David Mitchell

  Company: British Aerospace Defence Ltd.

  Duration of contract: two years to October 1995

  Bonuses: The responsibility of his Company

  Hours per week: 41 hours including meal breaks

  The post of international finance adviser, at present, is a fixed-term appointment as a civil servant and is not classed as a secondee.

  IFA: Mr. Miles Faulkner

  Previous company: Trafalgar house

  Duration of contract: Two years extended by one year to March 1996

  Bonuses: Eligible for normal civil service performance-related pay

  Hours per week: Four days per week—32.8 hours

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 139, if he will give the net cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation in each year from 1979–80 to 1992–93. [19432]

  Mr. Freeman
  Final outturn figures for the Defence Export Services Organisation for the years 1988–89 to 1992–93 are as stated below. Figures before 1988–89 are not readily available.

  the costs of the support staff who drive the horseboxes and care for the horses; and what those costs are as a daily rate and in total for each year since 1991. [19539]

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the armed forces who are permitted to hunt during duty time are not liable for the costs of military drivers and grooms as such costs arise irrespective of participation in hunting or any other form of training and are therefore not additional.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of fuel used by the Household Cavalry in attending fox hunt meets that has been reimbursed to the Ministry of Defence for each year since 1991. [19537]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of fuel used by members of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment in travelling to fox hunt meets are met privately by the individuals taking part. The requirement for reimbursement does not, therefore, arise.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances it is permitted for individuals who are not serving members of the armed forces to use army horses or equipment to hunt; and what charges are made for the use of such equipment. [19540]

  Mr. Soames
  Individuals who are not serving members of the armed forces are not permitted to use Army horses or equipment to hunt.
  229
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from what date members of the armed forces who hunt have been liable for the costs of fuel for transport to and from hunt meets. [19538]

  Mr. Soames
  So far as we have been able to determine, members of the armed forces who are permitted to hunt have always been liable for the costs of fuel for transport to and from hunt meets.

  European Armaments Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts in respect of the markets which the European arms procurement agency will endeavour to satisfy; and if he will make a statement. [19446]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers and officials of my Department have played a full part in discussions, within the forum of the Western European Armaments Group, on the concept and role of a European armaments agency. These discussions continue.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if membership of the European arms procurement agency will be subject to parliamentary approval. [19445]

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions on a European armaments agency continue. Formal parliamentary approval would not be necessary if the UK were to become a member of such an agency, but Parliament will, of course, be kept informed of developments.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the United Kingdom's proposed joining of the European arms procurement agency will affect the policy of(a) subsidiarity in defence and (b) the resources available for diversification of defence industries. [19443]

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions on a European armaments agency continue. If the UK became a member, this would not affect the principle that decisions on armaments procurement for the UK armed forces are the preserve of Her Majesty's Government. It is not envisaged that UK membership of a European armaments agency would have any effect upon the resources available for diversification of defence industries.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department, and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19549]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) 1992–93

  36.589 million1

  1993–94

  Ministry of Defence

  40.944

  Atomic Weapons Establishment

  0.583

  Defence Research Agency

  3.694

  1994–95

  Ministry of Defence

  39.944

  Atomic Weapons Establishment

  0.450

  Defence Research Agency

  4.392

  230

  £ million

  (b) 1992–93

  7.345 million1

  1993–94

  Ministry of Defence

  4.998

  Atomic Weapons Establishment

  0.242

  Defence Research Agency

  1.231

  1994–95

  Ministry of Defence

  3.801

  Atomic Weapons Establishment

  0.070

  Defence Research Agency

  1.690

  1Separate figures for defence agencies are not available.

  Haymes Garth
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of(a) all structural repairs, to Haymes Garth and (b) all other work carried out to the building, and the total sums expended. [19781]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of refurbishing Haymes Garth was £380,000; of which £80,000 was spent on essential external maintenance, £68,000 was spent on furniture and fittings and £232,000 on structural work and alterations.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on(a) redecoration, (b) curtains and (c) other furnishings to Haymes Garth; what were the estimated costs in each such category; and by whom and on what dates these (i) estimates and (ii) payments were authorised.

  Mr. Soames
  The total sum spent on redecoration, curtains and other furnishings to Haymes Garth was £68,000. The original allocation for these items was £60,000. RAF Support Command costed and approved the work at Haymes Garth.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by whom and on what date the decision was taken to renovate Haymes Garth.

  Mr. Soames
  The decision to retain Haymes Garth was taken by the then Air Officer Commanding in Chief RAF Support Command in February 1992, and the renovation programme stemmed from that decision.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Air Chief Marshall Sir Sandy Wilson was informed that he was to occupy Haymes Garth; and when he took up residence. [19785]

  Mr. Soames
  Sir Sandy Wilson took up residence at Haymes Garth in May 1993, and had been aware that he was to occupy the house from August 1992.

  Small Arms Spares
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has decided not to proceed with the market-test initiative on the management and supply of small arms spares; and if he will make a statement. [18799]

  Mr. Freeman
  The market test of management and supply of small arms spares was withdrawn from full competition because of insurmountable intellectual property rights and critical item manufacture problems. However, the market testing process has identified changes in procurement processes which, once introduced, will lead to efficiency savings.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requirements there are for officials in his department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19351]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs on 19 April,Official Report, column 189. My officials follow the procedures set out in that answer.

  Four compliance cost assessments were issued in Northern Ireland in the first three months of this year.

  Parliament Buildings, Stormont
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects work to start on the repair of the fire damage and refurbishment of Parliament buildings, Stormont; and what is his estimate of the completion date for this project. [19467]

  Mr. Moss
  The debris resulting from the fire on 2 January has now been removed from the former Commons chamber. A detailed examination of the damage has been undertaken to assess its extent and to develop options for repair and refurbishment. I will make an announcement when this assessment is completed.

  DNA Sampling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to amend the law to allow the RUC to make greater use of DNA sampling. [20333]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I intend to introduce legislation which will allow the RUC to take full advantage of developments in the technology of DNA analysis and give the police in Northern Ireland the opportunity to take samples from those suspected of a range of offences in wider circumstances than at present. It is vital that the RUC should be able to make use of technological innovation in the detection and investigation of crime at the earliest opportunity.

  These measures will facilitate the use of improved technology for the analysis of DNA samples and fine-tune the law in other areas. They will assist the RUC to maintain its well-earned reputation for professionalism and their standards of excellence in investigating and detecting crime.

  In addition, I plan to clarify the law in Northern Ireland on the status of prisoners when they are required for interview by the police and in respect of prisoners who are unlawfully at large in Northern Ireland so that they may be arrested and returned to custody as swiftly as possible no matter what part of the UK from which they are unlawfully at large.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19415]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department employs one political adviser and one chief economic adviser. Their salary and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. Their grades range from grade 3 to economic assistant.

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in full the official receiver's responses on whether the work of the Insolvency Service should be contracted out. [19936]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The responses from official receivers are still being considered. If a decision is made to seek parliamentary approval for an enabling order a digest of the official receiver's responses will be published by laying copies in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people and what percentage of the work force are employed in small and medium enterprises. [19093]

  Mr. Page
  At the end of 1991, 14 million people, or 67 per cent. of the work force, excluding central and local government, were employed in enterprises with fewer than 500 employees.

  Business Links
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Business Link initiatives are now fully operational in the United Kingdom. [19095]

  Mr. Page
  Ninety Business Links are open in England as at 12 April 1995. Separate arrangements for providing support services for businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom are being developed by the offices for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Regional Supply Networks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the budget allocated to the regional supply networks in the current year. [19094]

  Mr. Page
  The budget allocated to the regional supply network in the 1995–96 financial year is £2.8 million.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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

  233
  (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent 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. [1176221]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The NDPBs sponsored by my Department are listed in the publication "Public Bodies 1994", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The other information requested is not available centrally and could not be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The DTI's executive agencies are detailed on pages 80 to 84 of my Department's annual report—Cm 2804—which is also available in the Library of the House. I have asked the chief executives of these agencies to write direct to the hon. Member giving the other information requested.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Patent Office to the parliamentary question tabled by you on 28 March 1995.
  Promotional expenditure of the Patent Office since its inception as an executive agency (in March 1990) is shown below in the format requested:

  £000

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional matters and activities

  Total

  Proportion of total on recruitment advertising (per cent.)

  actual

  1990–91

  56

  580

  636

  1.1

  1991–92

  71

  813

  884

  2.5

  1992–93

  398

  989

  1,387

  0.6

  1993–94

  409

  1,136

  1,545

  0.0

  forecast

  1994–95

  228

  643

  871

  0.8

  1995–96

  156

  450

  606

  1.0

  There has been no expenditure on television and radio advertising in the period shown. The main objective of our advertising is to encourage British companies, and individuals, to obtain patents, trade marks and registered design protection; and thus to promote innovation and the international competitiveness of British industry and commerce through intellectual property rights.

  Letter from John Hobday to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your Question of 28 March to the President of the Board of Trade in which you asked for information on expenditure on promotional activities by non-departmental public bodies and agencies for which he has responsibility.
  The accounts Services Agency was created in October 1991, since when it has had no spending on television, radio or newspaper advertising. It had however spent some £26,000 on other promotional material and activities as follows:

  £

  1992–93

  5,600

  1993–94

  8,300

  1994–95

  112,100

  1Estimated. None of the advertising was in respect of equipment.

  You will wish to know that the Accounts Services Agency ceased to be an agency on 31 March after which the services provided by it were contracted-out to the CSL Group Limited.
  234
  Letter from David Durham to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking about the total expenditure on all forms of advertising, promotional materials and activities, by non-departmental public bodies and agencies since 1979.
  Following the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade, I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House which became an Executive Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in November 1988.
  Companies House Executive Agency advertising expenditure in £000 is as follows:

  Year

  (a) TV

  (b) Radio

  (c) Newspapers

  (d) Other

  (e) Total

  1989–90

  0

  0

  incl. in D

  303

  303

  1990–91

  0

  0

  224

  174

  398

  1991–92

  0

  0

  190

  137

  327

  1992–93

  0

  0

  332

  168

  500

  1993–94

  0

  80

  122

  164

  366

  1994–95

  0

  0

  174

  205

  379

  Total

  0

  80

  1,042

  1,151

  2,273

  The estimate for 1995–96 is:

  0

  0

  200

  276

  476

  These figures include expenditure on advertising to raise the awareness of Late Filing Penalties and to inform and remind companies of the due dates for filing; on exhibitions, literature and leaflets, and on publications including the annual report to Parliament.

  It is not possible to give precise figures on the amount of our budgets spent on recruitment advertising. While not included in the above figure, it is between 1% and 2% of the total at column (e). On the handful of occasions when a recruitment agency has been involved, the fee has covered advertising, sifting, preliminary interviews etc.

  I hope this is helpful to you.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about expenditure on advertising and on other promotional materials and activities.
  The Insolvency Service, which became an Agency in March 1990, does not place advertisements or produce promotional material of its functions. It does however publish an Agency Annual Report, at a cost of some £13,000 for the 1993–94 report.
  Recruitment advertising is undertaken from time to time at both national and local level. Expenditure was devolved to the Agency from 1993–94. The amounts expended have been £14,900 for 1993–94 and £4,594 for 1994–95.
  Official Receivers of The Insolvency Service are required to place in newspapers and other journals, notices concerning specific matters relating to individual insolvency cases, for example a notice of the making of a bankruptcy order. The cost of these are a charge on the estates of the bankrupts and companies in compulsory liquidation to which they relate.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  I refer to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of advertising for each non-departmental public body and agency for which he is responsible. NEL has not incurred any expenditure on either television advertising or radio advertising. The total expenditure on newspaper advertising and other promotional materials and activities is shown on the attached schedule together with the proportion of

  235
  that total which was spent on recruitment advertising. The period covered is from financial year 1992/93 which is when the data started being recorded in the detail you require.
  I trust you will fine the information satisfactory for your purposes.

  NEL Executive Agency

  Financial year

  Total expenditure £

  Recruitment as percentage

  1992–93

  38,010

  9

  1993–94

  59,437

  24

  1994–95

  43,689

  35

  1995–96

  45,000

  5

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:

  EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure on advertising.
  While NWML takes every opportunity to bring its activities to the attention of interested parties, the use of paid advertising is rare and there has been no such expenditure since 1992. Expenditure in previous years, for which figures are not readily available, was limited to occasional advertisements in specialist journals. For 1995–96 advertising expenditure is likely to be £5,000.
  For 1993–94 expenditure on promotional materials and activities was £8,245.67. In 1995–96, this is likely to increase to approximately £9,500.
  Expenditure on recruitment advertising has been restricted to local newspapers and amounts to approximately £1500 over the last five years.

  Letter from Dr. Peter Clapham to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about expenditure on advertising and promotional activities by agencies for which he is responsible. NPL became an Executive Agency in July 1990.
  NPL does not use television or radio advertising, and we record expenditure on recruitment advertising separately from expenditure on other forms of advertising and promotion. The table below sets out (i) NPL's annual expenditure on recruitment advertising; (ii) expenditure on publicity, which covers the external cost of advertisements in the technical press, exhibitions and other promotional activities and materials; and (iii) the approximate amount of expenditure within (ii) accounted for by paid advertisements in the print media. All figures are in £000.

  A TV

  B Radio

  C Newspapers Magazine

  D Other publicity

  E Recruitment

  F Year totals

  1990–91

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  171,426

  —

  1171,426

  1991–92

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  216,166

  —

  1216,166

  1992–93

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  2229,579

  59,643

  289,222

  1993–93

  Nil

  Nil

  38,018

  149,786

  57,149

  244,953

  1994–95 (Estimated)

  Nil

  Nil

  19,129

  192,505

  47,500

  259,134

  1995–96 Projection

  Nil

  Nil

  40,000

  245,000

  40,000

  325,000

  1Expenditure for columns C, D and E are not kept separately 1990–92.

  2Expenditure for columns C and D not kept separately 1992–93.

  Consultancy Brokerage Scheme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider his specific proposals for a
  236

  (i) Recruitment advertising

  (ii) Publicity

  (iii) Advertising in print media included in (ii)

  1990–91

  28

  150

  —

  1991–92

  54

  165

  22

  1992–93

  32

  413

  12

  1993–94

  22

  283

  22

  1994–95 (est)

  34

  463

  12

  1995–96 (est)

  15

  402

  15

  1Agency expenditure only. Most publicity in 1990–91 was included in DTIs central publicity expenditure.

  I hope this provides the information you require.

  Letter from R.D. Worswick to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:

  PQ ON PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to write to you about the spend on promotional activity by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.
  The promotional activity undertaken by LGC is primarily in support of its scientific programmes, seminars and scientific events; but the figures also include expenditure on more general promotion of LGC and its annual report and accounts.
  The attached table sets out the information that is readily available.

  Spend by LGC on Promotional Activities by Financial Year

  £000 (ex-vat)

  Activity

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  a) Television

  0

  0

  0

  0

  b) Radio

  0

  0

  0

  0

  c) Technical press

  3

  6

  4

  13

  d) Other promotional activities1

  271

  253

  175

  237

  e) total

  274

  268

  194

  262

  f) recruitment advertising as per cent. of total

  n/a

  6 per cent.

  8 per cent.

  5 per cent.

  1The majority of these activities are in support of DTI's Validity of Analytical Measurements the initiative aimed at creating awareness of quality issues concerned with chemical measurements.n/a Not available.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 April 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about advertising costs for this Agency.
  Since becoming an Agency in 1990 it has spent the following on advertising.

  consultancy brokerage scheme following representations received about them. [18904]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I have received a number of representations from

  237
  organisations and individuals in the consultancy industry about the DTI's consultancy brokerage service. My officials have also consulted widely within the industry and across a range of relevant interest groups. The concept of such a service has been generally welcomed. As with all new initiatives, I am willing to consider constructive proposals for its further development.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Pr%sident of the Boardof Trade how many consultants have to date joined the consultancy brokerage scheme; and if he will make a statement. [18905]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: As at 11 April 1995, 152 consultants had applied to join the DTI's consultancy brokerage service. Invitations to join the service were issued in late January and no deadline was set. We aim to recruit many more consultants and are actively considering how to speed up the pace of applications.

  Government Funding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government funding has been provided to(a) the Industrial Research and Information Services Ltd, (b) the Industrial Trust and (c) Kennington Industrial Company in each year since 1965; and for what purposes it was granted. [17259]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: My Department has no knowledge of these companies and no record of having given the financial assistance.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control (Privatisation)
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in preparing the Civil Aviation Authority's air traffic control functions for privatisation and in preparing the timetable for privatisation. [18931]

  Mr. Norris
  Following discussion with interested parties, progress has been made in addressing the issues raised during the public consultation on privatisation of the CAA's air traffic control functions.

  The chairman of the CAA has also instigated a number of management changes designed to secure a greater degree of separation between the national air traffic services and the CAA's other businesses.

  Aircraft Regulations
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what regulations apply to cabin baggage on aircraft; how these are enforced; and if he will make a statement; [18971]

  (2) how many reported accidents to airline passengers involving cabin baggage have occurred in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [18970]

  Mr. Norris
  Articles 29 (6) and 37 (2) (d) (ii) of the Air Navigation Order 1989 cover the safe carriage of cabin baggage in UK-registered aircraft and regulation 4 of the Air Navigation (General) Regulations 1993 covers the weighing of cabin baggage. Compliance with these requirements is enforced by the Civil Aviation Authority.
  238
  In addition, under UK aviation security requirements, all items of cabin baggage must be screened to a specified standard before they may be taken on board an aircraft. Airlines are also required to check to ensure that disembarking passengers have not left behind any baggage. Monitoring and enforcement of security requirements is carried out by my Department's aviation security inspectors.

  Minor accidents involving cabin baggage are not reportable incidents under the Air Navigation Order. However, the Civil Aviation Authority advises me that in the past five years it has received five reports of incidents in which passengers have received minor injuries in accidents involving cabin baggage.

  Airline Charges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of comparative charges to airlines in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [19143]

  Mr. Norris
  I have not made any such assessment.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19649]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested in respect of this Department and its agencies is as follows:(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment:

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  CTG/MSA/TCA/HA

  1,413,449

  1,353,022.14

  —

  CTG

  —

  —

  154,110.35

  MSA

  —

  —

  178,589.85

  TCA

  —

  —

  365,911.33

  HA

  —

  —

  149,591.51

  VCA

  4,544

  4,947

  36

  VIEA

  121,595

  156,780

  56,424

  DSA

  14,130

  73,534

  51,605

  DVLA

  179,500

  77,900

  8,600

  TRL

  1,973

  —

  5,916.90

  Notes:

  The above figures do not include other allowances such as Excess Fares, Additional Housing Costs Allowance and Housing Cost Supplements which are paid monthly with salary. These figures would be difficult to disaggregate and present as total figures.

  (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled:

  1992–93: £30,200 (DVLA)

  £26,254 (TRL)

  £22,413 (TRL)

  1993–94: £21,109 (VIEA)

  £19,000 (DVLA)

  £18,452 (CTG)

  239

  1994–95: £26,086 (HA)

  £16,744 (MSA)

  £14,574 (DSA)

  (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years.

  Year

  Agency

  £

  1992–93

  CTG/MSA/TCA/HA

  5,590.76

  VCA

  325

  VIEA

  7,152.69

  DSA

  3,533

  DVLA

  11,200

  TRL

  1,193

  1993–94

  CTG/MSA/TCA/HA

  6,765.12

  VCA

  495

  VIEA

  7,426

  DSA

  4,902

  DVLA

  5,600

  TRL

  0

  1994–95

  CTG.

  5,867.36

  MSA

  6,231.03

  TCA

  6,568.11

  HA

  4,399.75

  VCA

  18

  VIEA

  1,276

  DSA

  5,160

  DVLA

  1,200

  TRL

  1,972.30

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19674]

  Mr. Norris
  The total hours and the amount paid in overtime for the last three years for the central Department and agencies for which I have responsibility are:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (latest available)

  Central Department

  Hrs

  82,971

  57,904

  54,463

  Amt

  £710,800

  £523,797

  £517,676

  Coastguard Agency

  Hrs

  123,584

  115,392

  93,842

  Amt

  £1,015,125

  £946,562

  £777,611

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Hrs

  11,132

  25,163

  58,060

  Amt

  £115,182

  £202,381

  £463,168

  Driving Standards Agency

  Hrs

  37,187

  39,789

  51,835

  Amt

  £270,466

  £289,430

  £377,177

  Highways Agency1

  Hrs

  —

  —

  42,997

  Amt

  —

  —

  £389,719

  240

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (latest available)

  Marine Safety Agency

  Hrs

  6,023

  6,807

  6,718

  Amt

  £63,811

  £69,486

  £73,357

  Transport Research Laboratory1

  Hrs

  —

  —

  12,750

  Amt

  —

  —

  £113,203

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Hrs

  —

  80

  275

  Amt

  —

  £772

  £1,842

  Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency

  Hrs

  62,452

  75,993

  89,698

  Amt

  £466,984

  £573,474

  £668,293

  1Figures for previous years are included with the Central Department.

  Data on sickness absence are submitted to the Occupational Health and Safety Agency and is not recorded separately for agencies. The total figure for the Department, including the agencies, is 153,507 days for 1992 and 145,391 days for 1993. Information relating to 1994 is not yet available. There is not reliable data available for a monetary equivalent to be calculated.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what reasons he does not judge it appropriate to permit national lottery tickets to be sold by independent licensed bookmakers; and if he will make a statement. [19000]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national lottery is at the softest end of the gambling spectrum. Not allowing the sale of national lottery tickets on certain premises, including licensed betting offices, reflects the distinction between the lottery and other types of gaming.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on the buying of national lottery tickets by people of different socio-economic groups. [19113]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that Camelot Group plc carries out research as part of its programme to monitor the appeal of individual constituent games which make up the national lottery. This indicates that the profile of national lottery players broadly reflects the profile of the population as a whole.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19420]
  241
  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department does not employ any political advisers. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers by grade are full-time equivalent:

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  Total

  2

  National Museum of Photography, Film and Television
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the closure on the education unit at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford; if he has authorised his officials to have discussions with the museum about the securing of funding to enable the unit to be reopened; and if he will make a statement. [19860]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Since 1984, educational provision of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford has been generously supported by the city of Bradford metropolitan council. I understand this funding has now been withdrawn, reluctantly, at short notice and the education unit has had to be closed in consequence. I have not received any representations about the closure. My Department provides funding of £21.7 million to the National Museum of Science and Industry, of which the NMPFT is a part, and it is for the trustees of the National Museum of Science and Industry to decide how to spend this money. I understand, however, that the museum is currently reviewing its formal education programme of free direct teaching for educational visitors and that, when the necessary planning and preparation are completed, it expects to put in place a revised programme of education provision, as part of its long-term commitment to education as an integral part of its activities.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in reaching a decision on the future ownership of the Natural Resources Institute. [20453]

  Mr. Baldry
  We announced on 20 December 1994 our intention to invite formal tenders for the future ownership of the Natural Resources Institute. A number of expressions of interest in assuming ownership of NRI were received.

  Those being invited to prepare fuller bids are as follows:

  Cranfield university

  A consortium led by the university of East Anglia

  University of Greenwich, in association with Edinburgh university, Imperial college and Wye college

  242

  Universities of Nottingham and Leicester

  University of Reading

  Scottish agricultural college

  Serco International Ltd. in association with university of Wales

  University of Warwick

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18720]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18718]

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

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minster what revision he has made to his statement of 18 July 1994,Official Report, column 2, that directors should follow the lead that the Government have set for pay in the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [19039]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's approach to public sector pay stands as a commendable example to directors and others in the private sector. However, the remuneration of directors is ultimately a matter for the companies themselves and their shareholders. I have welcomed the establishment of the Greenbury committee, which will be making recommendations shortly relating to the arrangements for remunerating directors.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments were approved by the House in each Session or calender year since 1981; of these how many were of(a) general and (b) local application; and how many arise directly or indirectly from regulations or directives of the European Community.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Upper Waiting Hall
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 10 July to Friday 14 July 1995.
  243
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Dadabhai Naoroji, India's Patriot: Britain's MP, to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 1 May to Friday 5 May 1995.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the provision being made for access for disabled people in the design and construction on the new parliamentary building.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A ramp will be provided between the pavement at the main entrance and the main courtyard level, a rise of 0.5 m. The lifts at each corner of the courtyard will reach all floors of the building. The six Members' Rooms on the sixth floor are the only rooms not readily accessible to disabled persons, as they are reached from the floor below by spiral staircases. There are lavatories for disabled people on all the main floors.

  Official Report
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Administration Committee if he will make the contents of the Official Report available digitally to the media as soon as possible.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Official Report is conducting a pilot project to make the electronic text of the Official Report available within the House. I understand that the Information Committee recently approved an expansion of the project, which includes the electronic delivery of the full text and an on-line database. In the first instance, the system is being developed to meet the needs of Members and the House generally, but, in planning to develop the service to serve a wider readership, the needs of the media will be taken fully into account.

  Telephones
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make a statement on the exemption of telephones within the Palace of Westminster from British Telecom's 1471 call return system.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  As the BT 1471 call return system is available only to lines linked directly to the public exchange, it is not technically possible to connect the system to the Palace of Westminster telephone exchange.

  Weddings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consideration has been given to licensing Parliament for weddings under the Marriages Act 1994.

  Mr. Martin J. Martin
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: I am advised that the regulations made under the Marriages Act 1994 relate only to civil marriage. Approved premises must have no recent or continuing connection with religion or religious practices, be open to
  244
  the public without charge, and be regularly available to the public for civil marriage. I do not therefore consider it appropriate for the House to be licensed under the Act.

  Committee of Privileges
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the total cost of the inquiry by the Committee of Privileges regarding a complaint regarding an article in The Sunday Times of 10 July 1994 relating to the conduct of hon. Members; how many staff at the House were involved; what was the cost of publishing the report and annexes; and how many copies were printed.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Committee of Privileges is staffed by existing staff of the Department of the Clerk of the House; consequently no significant additional staff costs arise. The Committee has one Clerk who is also Clerk of the Journals and has other responsibilities. He is assisted by a secretary and a chief office clerk, both of whom have other duties. The fees of the Official Shorthand Writer for transcripts of evidence taken by the Committee and tape recordings supplied by The Sunday Times amounted to £5,676. Other costs directly attributable to the Committee's inquiry and the preparation of the report amounted to approximately £1,400.

  The cost to the House of copies of the report, evidence and appendices supplied for issue by the Vote Office is £16,800.

  The cost to Her Majesty's Stationery Office of printing and publishing the report, evidence, and appendices is estimated by them to be £23,400. I understand that HMSO expects to recoup a substantial part of this cost in sales. The number of copies of the report, evidence and appendices printed so far is 1,400.

TREASURY

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19673]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  a) total hours overtime

  HM Treasury Central Statistical Office

  122,156

  92,988

  65,716

  20,792

  15,291

  16,202

  Office of HM Paymaster General

  67,552

  69,353

  41,170

  Royal Mint

  93,353

  100,941

  96,189

  Valuation Office

  141,820

  124,499

  191,590

  Total

  445,672

  403,072

  410,867

  245

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  b) total amount paid (£)

  HM Treasury

  983,565

  761,352

  562,646

  Central Statistical Office

  188,377

  142,594

  161,203

  Office of HM Paymaster General

  417,804

  511,426

  310,434

  Royal Mint

  763,829

  858,788

  986,326

  Valuation Office

  1,305,877

  1,146,386

  1,764,161

  Total

  3,659,452

  3,420,546

  3,784,770

  c) days lost through sickness

  1992

  1993

  HM Treasury1

  11,792.1

  12,016.6

  Central Statistical Office1

  11,395.6

  11,734.5

  Office of HM Paymaster General1

  9,243.2

  9,129.6

  Royal Mint1

  2,102.5

  2,105.3

  Valuation Office

  54,017.0

  60,176.0

  Total

  88,550.4

  95,162.0

  1Data provided by OHSA. A monetary figure equivalent to the total number of days lost to sickness is not appropriate as there are too many variables involved in this calculation and it would be difficult to rely on the accuracy of any such calculation. Data are not yet available for 1994.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19566]

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure on subsistence for travel both in the United Kingdom and overseas is shown in the table.

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  HM Treasury

  1992–93

  141,595

  154,198

  1993–94

  77,372

  187,211

  1994–95

  48,663

  196,021

  Royal Mint

  1992–93

  22,230

  127,837

  1993–94

  26,176

  132,779

  1994–95

  24,057

  30,130

  Paymaster

  1992–93

  22,991

  0

  1993–94

  29,252

  0

  1994–95

  13,505

  0

  Valuation Office

  1992–93

  750,166

  20

  1993–94

  703,731

  25,000

  1994–95

  831,568

  216,000

  Central Statistical Office

  1992–93

  119,170

  92,600

  1993–94

  151,700

  114,900

  1994–95

  175,000

  115,400

  1Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are available only at disproportionate cost. Figures have however been estimated using total expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence adjusted for the known actual overseas subsistence expenditure in 1994–95.

  2Total expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [17625]

  Mr. Nelson
  The expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury on advertising is shown. Figures are not held that split up the various forms of advertising other than recruitment advertising.

  Year

  £

  Recruitment advertising percentage

  1992–93

  314,471

  84.5

  1993–94

  12,198,540

  12.7

  1994–95

  8,402,420

  3.4

  1995–96

  110,500

  100.0

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 include the advertising costs for the BT3 and the generating companies share sale.

  Nurses' Earnings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effects of income tax at the rates of 1978 and 1995 on the average nurse's current earnings. [19119]

  Sir George Young
  On the basis of the level of average earnings for full-time nurses as at April 1994, a single nurse will pay over £22 a week less income tax in 1995–96 than under a 1978–79 indexed tax regime. For the purposes of the calculation, it has been assumed that the nurse has no tax allowances or reliefs except for the basic personal allowance.

  Premium Bond Prizes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the number and value of premium bond prizes and to increase the maximum number of bonds which holders may purchase. [19466]

  Mr. Nelson
  Under the present prize structure, the number and value of prizes increase automatically in line with the number and value of bonds qualifying for the prize draws. For example, in April 1994 there were 222,380 prizes to a value of £14,454,700; in April 1995 there are 320,932 prizes to a value of £20,860,600. This reflects an increase in the value of eligible bonds over that period from £3,336 million to £4,814 million. I have no present plans to change the prize structure or to increase the £20,000 maximum holding limit.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19413]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury does not employ political or economic advisers.
  247
  The Treasury does, however, employ two special advisers to Ministers whose salaries are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. They are normally paid on the special advisers' salary scale of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £65,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this. Special advisers have the same conditions of service and are subject to broadly the same rules of conduct as other civil servants.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. Their grades range from assistant economist to grade 1A, the chief economic adviser.

  All London—based non—industrial full—time civil servants work a five—day week of 41 hours, including meal breaks.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of households whose after—tax income will be reduced by the forthcoming restriction of tax relief on the married couples allowance from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. [17179]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: About 7 million married couples will have their after—tax income reduced after allowing for changes in allowances and thresholds. The increase in age—related allowances will offset the married couples allowance restriction for most taxpayers aged 65 or over. Married couples will pay almost £5 a week less in tax than most single people on similar incomes in 1995–96.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18644]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: I am the green Minister for the Chancellor's Departments, but all my ministerial colleagues take an interest in environmental issues as they affect their responsibilities. Treasury Ministers are responsible for fiscal measures, and play an active part in the consideration of all environmental initiatives with significant public expenditure or supply side implications; they have been closely involved in discussion of the measures set out in the Environment Bill. The Chancellor's last Budget announced his intention to introduce a tax on landfill waste, and reaffirmed the decision progressively to increase excise duty on fuel in real terms.

SCOTLAND

  Cattle Plague
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of cattle plague were reported in each year since 1985. [18615]
  248
  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of cattle plague have been recorded in Scotland since 1985.

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the difference in fatal accident rates on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales; and what action he will take to reduce the rates in Scotland. [19127]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are a number of possible reasons for the differences in fatal accident rates on motorways and trunk roads in Scotland compared with England and Wales, including weather, traffic density and longer hours of darkness. In order to examine this further, the Scottish Office has recently commenced an investigation into the impact of characteristics of the road network in Scotland on accident rates. This investigation is expected to be completed at the end of 1996.

  The Scottish Office is taking a number of new initiatives in the fields of engineering, education and enforcement which are designed to improve safety on all roads in Scotland. These include, for trunk roads, route accident reduction plans, route action plans and the introduction of speed cameras to decrease vehicle speeds and so to reduce the incidence and severity of accidents.

  Co-operative Sector
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of the co-operative sector in the economy of Scotland. [18981]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The co-operative sector continues to have a role to play in the economy of Scotland. This has been acknowledged by the Government and funding for a number of co-operative projects has been, and continues to be, available through the urban programme. Assistance is also available to co-operatives under a range of schemes designed to encourage the development of small and medium-sized businesses. In order to encourage the development of marketing co-operatives the Government have introduced a marketing development scheme, intended to help producers and processors improve their marketing and commercial expertise. The Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society also continues to receive Government funding. In the financial sector, it is intended that measures will be considered by the deregulation committee later this year to remove certain restrictions on credit unions and industrial provident societies. These measures should enable the organisations concerned to streamline their procedures and should encourage growth.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to both local and central government of administration involved with the collection of the poll tax across Scotland; how many staff were involved; what is the cost of administration involved in the collection of the council tax across Scotland and how staff are involved; what was the cost of administering the transition period between the poll tax and the council tax; and how many staff were involved. [19522]
  249
  Mr. Lang
  The net cost to local authorities of collecting both the community charge and the council tax since the introduction of the community charge in 1989–90 is given in the table below. As local tax collection is purely a local authority function, no central Government staff or costs are involved. Information on the numbers of local authority staff involved in the collection process is not held centrally. Records of the costs incurred by local authorities in relation to the change from the community charge to the council tax are not held centrally and central Government costs cannot be separately identified.

  £000

  1989–90

  10,426

  1990–91

  25,817

  1991–92

  25,618

  1992–93

  29,595

  1993–94

  40,128

  1994–95

  28,800

  Notes:

  1. All expenditure figures are net of any related income and loan and leasing charges.

  2. The figures for the year 1989–90 to 1993–94 are final outturns. The figure for 1994–95 is a budget estimate.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State, for Scotland if he was consulted by ScotRail over its proposal to include in its draft timetable additional passenger services involving Cowlairs north curve and south-west junction, Springburn junction and Cumbernauld; and if he will make a statement. [19831]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: No. Responsibility for railway matters rests with the Secretary of State for Transport on a Great Britain basis, and for rail services with British Rail and the train operating units.

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many parliamentary questions to her Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which she has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18521]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to her Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which she 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. [18522]

  Mr. Sackville
  Parliamentary questions are not transferred to non-departmental public bodies. The Department's first agency was established on 1 April 1991.

  Five parliamentary questions were referred to agency chief executives in the 1992–93 parliamentary Session.
  250
  Two parliamentary questions were referred to chief executives in 1993–94 and so far in the 1994–95 parliamentary Session 17 questions have been referred. The answers to all questions referred to the Department's agency chief executives have been printed in the Official Report. No parliamentary questions were referred to agency chief executives in the 1991–92 parliamentary Session.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations have been received from the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs in relation to Temazepam since 1992; what action she has taken on these recommendations; if she will review the position of her Department in relation to these recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [19022]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reviewed the controls on temazepam in 1992–93 and recommended, subject to a wide public consultation exercise, that the drug should be rescheduled from schedule 4 to schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985.

  Following the public consultation exercise and consideration of the responses, the council recommended to the Home Office in July 1993 that control of the drug should be tightened.

  My Department, in consultation with other Departments, has been considering the council's recommendation and we hope to be able to announce the outcome soon.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many advisers her Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19422]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health employs one special adviser. His salary and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings, and are confidential.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers by grade are full time equivalents:

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 3 level

  1

  Grade 5 level

  2

  Grade 6 level

  1

  Grade 7 level

  12

  Assistant Economist

  6

  Diseases
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of recorded cases of(a) smallpox, (b) rickets, (c) leprosy, (d) cholera, (e) tuberculosis, (f) poliomyelitis and (g) scorbutus, per region, for each year since 1985. [19695]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information relating to leprosy, cholera, tuberculosis and poliomyelitis can be found in tables 5 and 6 of "Communicable disease statistics,
  251
  England and Wales", series MB2, Numbers. 12–18, 1985–1992 HMSO 1987–1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Data on rickets and scorbutus are not available centrally.

  There have been no reported cases of smallpox in England and Wales since 1978.

  Malnutrition
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of recorded cases of malnutrition, per region, of(a) those below 16 years of age and (b) those 16 years old and above for the last five years for which figures are available. [19696]

  Mr. Sackville
  Malnutrition is a term which covers a wide variety of single or combined deficiencies of nutrients and/or energy. The Department of Health does not collect information specifically about the incidence of malnutrition, but in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food it carries out dietary and nutritional surveys of groups of the population to gain information on the food and nutrient intakes and nutritional status of the population. Copies of the reports of these surveys are placed in the Library. Current surveillance indicates that on average children and adults in the United Kingdom are not malnourished in terms of energy or any specific nutrient, except iron.

  GP Fundholders
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average amount spent by fundholders out of savings in extending premises and the average amount of improvement grants given to non-GP fundholders in the latest available year. [15003]

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 March 1995, c. 37–38]: I regret that the first paragraph of my previous reply is incorrect. It should read as follows:

  Information about the amount of savings spent by general practitioner fundholders on premises improvements is not available centrally. However, the National Audit Office report on GP fundholding estimates that about one third of GP fundholders surveyed had used savings to improve practice premises for the benefit of patients—for example, to provide a wider range of services.

EDUCATION

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's policy on those schools required to close by local education authorities as a result of having surplus places but which then seek to avoid closure by opting out; and if she will make a statement. [18688]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made it clear that we will not normally approve proposals for self-governing status prompted by the threat of closure. Each proposal is decided on its individual merits taking account of that general policy.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's policy on local education 252
  authorities reducing surplus places in schools; and if she will make a statement. [18687]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We continue to encourage all LEAs to remove surplus places as far as possible. We expect them—and the Funding Agency for Schools where appropriate—to keep under review opportunities for rationalisation of surplus capacity.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account was taken of the economic index in determining Liverpool's education standard spending assessment; and if she will make a statement. [18939]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. The education standard spending assessment methodology includes an index of additional educational needs to allow for variations between authorities in the cost of providing a standard level of service in areas of socio-economic disadvantage or with a high proportion of non-English speaking children.

  Stress (Teachers)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many teaching days have been lost due to teachers' extended leave as a result of stress in(a) 1992, (b) 1987 and (c) 1979; [19743]

  (2) how many secondary school teachers take extended leave due to stress every year. [19742]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many advisers her Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19427]

  Mr. Forth
  This Department employs one political adviser. Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Working hours are normally 41 hours a week.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers—full-time equivalents—of Government economic service economists are employed in my Department: one grade 5, 1.6 grade sevens and four economic assistants.

WALES

  Education Research Projects
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been devoted to funding education research projects by his Department in each of the last five years; what percentage of education spending this is; and if he will make a statement about the equivalent figures for the Department for Education, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office. [18929]
  253
  Mr. Richards
  Expenditure on education research projects by the Welsh Office over the past five years has been:

  Expenditure on education research projects £

  Percentage of Welsh Office Education expenditure Per cent.

  1990–91

  452,072

  1.33

  1991–92

  545,768

  1.29

  1992–93

  581,256

  0.62

  1993–94

  401,508

  10.10

  1994–95

  119,843

  10.03

  1The funding of further and higher education in Wales became the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office in 1993.

  Expenditure on these matters in the Department for Education, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office are matters for my right hon. Friends in those Departments.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the education research projects funded by his Department in each of the last five years. [18930]

  Mr. Richards
  The education research projects funded by the Welsh Office over the past five years are shown in the following list:

  1990–91

  Development of materials for the practice of mathematical techniques, strategies and skills

  Principles and practice of GCSE in Wales

  A national evaluation of pilot schemes for records of achievement

  Preparation of materials and resources for welsh medium education in secondary schools—phase 3—publication

  Assessment of pupils' performance in science, phase 2

  Assessment of pupils' performance in design and technology

  Media education—strategies for the 1990s

  Services connected with the assessment of performance of pupils in certain subjects in schools in England, Wales and NI

  A profile of the Welsh of pupils aged six to seven attending welsh medium schools in south-east Wales

  Production of Welsh medium primary materials about humanities—"Gwreiddiau"

  Design and technology as a cross-curriculum experience in schools in Wales

  Creation of a Welsh dimension to the national educational resources' information service database

  Welsh for adults—further advanced distance learning—phase 3

  Implementing the task force on schools management report in Wales

  Economic awareness as a curriculum entitlement in Wales

  The use of satellites in modern language teaching

  NERIS in primary schools

  1991–92

  Preparation of materials and resources for Welsh medium education secondary schools, phase 3—publication

  Production of Welsh medium primary materials about humanities— "Gwreiddiau"

  Creation of a Welsh dimension to the national educational resources information service database

  Implementing the task force on school management report in Wales

  The use of satellites in modern language teaching

  Economic awareness as a curriculum entitlement in Wales

  The use and practical application of mathematics in a cross-curricular context

  Survey of attitudes to returning to full-time teaching

  254

  NERIS in primary schools

  Media strategies for the 1990s

  Local management of schools

  1992–93

  Preparation of materials and resources for Welsh medium education secondary schools, phase 3—publication

  The use and practical application of mathematics in a cross-curricular context

  Economic awareness as a curriculum entitlement in Wales

  National curriculum: key stage 3 data collection and aggregation systems

  Welsh medium GCSE, A and A/s examination syllabuses and associated teacher guidance material

  Gwreiddiau project: Welsh medium materials for humanities in the primary school

  Gwreiddiau project: Welsh medium materials for science in the primary school

  CATS Cymru—framework

  Implementing the task force on school management report in Wales

  Interactive video for INSET in secondary mathematics

  Development of mathematical material for GCSE coursework Induction training

  To define a threshold level for the Welsh language

  1993–94

  To define a threshold level for the Welsh language

  Economic awareness as a curriculum entitlement in Wales

  Evaluation of WO satellites initiative

  Interactive video in schools

  Media education Wales

  The use and practical application of mathematics in cross-curricular context

  Gwreiddiau project: Welsh medium materials for science in the primary school

  Induction training

  Development of mathematical material for GCSE coursework

  Interactive video for INSET in secondary mathematics

  In-service education and training—INSET—in small primary schools in Wales

  Broadcasting materials

  Integrated learning systems

  Welsh medium syllabuses

  BBC feasibility study into the use of radio in Wales as part of a continuing education and training initiative.

  1994–95

  Gwreiddiau project: Welsh medium materials for science in the primary school

  Induction training

  In-service education and training in small primary schools in Wales

  Integrated learning systems

  Media education Wales

  BBC feasibility study into the use of radio in Wales as part of a continuing education and training initiative.

  A48
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 977, what consideration he is giving to the application of the principles of the private finance initiative to the proposed private road linking the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff and the Eastern avenue A48; what initiatives he will bring forward to reduce the amount of time taken in considering how to apply the tests required on applying the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [19253]
  255
  Mr. Redwood
  All proposals for capital schemes are subject to established guidance, which now includes guidance on the scope for involving the private sector. The inclusion of the private sector is not intended to delay schemes.

  It is for South Glamorgan health authority and the relevant NHS trusts in the first instance to prepare business cases for the capital required. These discussions are on-going.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19567]

  Mr. Redwood
  Records of costs are not held separately for internal and for overseas travel. The total identifiable expenditure on subsistence related to travel by Welsh Office staff in each of the last three financial years is as follows:

  1992–93: £632,000

  1993–94: £535,000

  1994–95: £474,000

  Cadw does not record this subsistence information separately.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19647]

  Mr. Redwood
  The amounts reimbursed to Welsh Office and Cadw staff in the last three financial years were:

  1992–93: £327,000

  1993–94: £256,000

  1994–95: £257,000

  Payments for individual cases can spread over several years. Information categorised by case is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tenovus Cancer Research Campaign
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the national lottery and Tenovus (Wales) Cancer Research Campaign, Clwyd. [19514]

  Mr. Richards
  None.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he will give to Tenovus (Wales) Cancer Research Campaign, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement. [19514]

  Mr. Richards
  I have no plans to provide assistance to Tenovus (Wales) Cancer Research Campaign, Clwyd. However, charitable organisations including medical charities will be able to apply for lottery funds through the National Lottery Charities Board.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19412]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department employs one political adviser. His salary and conditions of work were negotiated individually in relation to his previous earnings, and are confidential.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants. In the Welsh Office, these are all full time and comprise: one senior economist, grade 5; two economic advisers, grade 7, and two assistant economists, at HEOD.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the funding for the Countryside Council for Wales for 1995–96 will affect its role in the conservation of the 38 proposed special areas of conservation in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19294]

  Mr. Redwood
  I am satisfied that the funding for 1995–96 will be sufficient to enable the Countryside Council for Wales to carry out its statutory duties with regard to the 38 proposed special areas of conservation in Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total of(a) usable and (b) set-aside capital receipts for each local authority in Wales; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of set-aside receipts which remain available. [19879]

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available information is given in the following table. No information is collected on the proportion of set-aside receipts which remain available.

  Capital receipts at 31 March 1994

  £000

  (a) Usable cash backed accumulated receipts

  (b) Receipts set-aside by not yet redeemed

  Alyn and Deeside

  967

  5,006

  Colwyn

  924

  3,046

  Delyn

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  283

  2,155

  Rhuddlan

  334

  3,242

  Wrexham Maelor

  981

  0

  Carmarthen

  1,857

  6,751

  Ceredigion

  2,069

  7,862

  Dinefwr

  370

  2,892

  Llanelli

  1.056

  3,021

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,725

  1,212

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,641

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,876

  11,978

  Islwyn

  359

  9,990

  Monmouth

  4,905

  6,847

  Newport

  8.125

  6.150

  Torfaen

  3,271

  7,928

  Aberconwy

  1,793

  2,928

  Arfon

  207

  6,860

  Dwyfor

  314

  1,039

  257

  Capital receipts at 31 March 1994

  £000

  (a) Usable cash backed accumulated receipts

  (b) Receipts set-aside by not yet redeemed

  Meirionnydd

  0

  749

  Ynys Mon

  60

  4,084

  Cynon Valley

  0

  5,134

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,072

  4,390

  Ogwr

  3.326

  0

  Rhondda

  1,570

  2,178

  Rhymney Valley

  1,107

  6,067

  Taff Ely

  3,003

  13,276

  Brecknock

  1,769

  7,137

  Montgomeryshire

  1,574

  8,996

  Radnorshire

  450

  3,289

  Cardiff

  20,363

  418

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,716

  23,487

  Port Talbot

  550

  7,191

  Lliw Valley

  2,211

  7,483

  Neath

  481

  5,851

  Swansea

  268

  11,367

  Clwyd

  2,216

  9,911

  Dyfed

  1,318

  0

  Gwent

  7,205

  0

  Gwynedd

  2,615

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,915

  1,741

  Powys

  431

  4,627

  South Glamorgan

  2.563

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1,971

  0

  Dyfed/Powys Joint Police Authority

  0

  70

  North Wales Joint Police Authority

  846

  1,610

  South Wales Joint Police Authority

  437

  0

  Total Wales

  102,094

  217,966

  Sources:

  (a) Cash-backed accumulated receipts returns.

  (b) Capital outturn returns. Excludes European Community grants.

  Housing Review
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of the outcome of the financial management and policy review of housing for Wales. [20454]

  Mr. Redwood
  A summary of the FMPR report recommendations and my Department's response, has been placed in the Library of the House today.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in appointing members to the Council for the Central laboratory of the Research Councils. [20455]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am delighted to say that I have appointed the following members to serve on the council:
  258
  COUNCIL FOR THE CENTRAL LABORATORY OF THE RESEARCH COUNCILS

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Dr. Paul Williams

  Members:

  Professor Julia Higgins FRS (Imperial College, London)

  Dr. Geoff Robinson FEng (IBM UK)

  Professor John Krebs FRS (NERC)

  Sir Martin Wood OBE FRS (Oxford Instruments plc)

  Professor Robin Williams FRS (University of Wales, College of Swansea)

  Dr. Derek Roberts CBE FRS FEng (University College, London)

  Mr. Richard Lawrence-Wilson (Director, Finance and Administration, Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils)

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19664]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of expenditure on removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment with the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies for each of the last three years are as follows:

  (a) The total amount of removal cost and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment in each of the last three years (figures rounded)

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Cabinet Office (incl. OPSS)

  24,900

  200,600

  250,500

  OPSS Agencies Civil Service College

  6,800

  19,900

  45,000

  Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety

  7,100

  12,900

  8,200

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Nil

  Nil

  1,600

  COI

  300

  19,300

  29,000

  HMSO

  158,000

  274,000

  369,000

  (b) The amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled over the three year period

  £

  £

  £

  Cabinet Office (including OPSS)

  16,018

  14,214

  13,879

  OPSS Agencies

  259

  (b) The amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled over the three year period

  £

  £

  £

  Civil Service College

  21,600

  16,293

  12,419

  Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety

  128,200

  nil

  nil

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Chessington Computer Centre

  1,600

  nil

  nil

  COI

  28,958

  19,300

  336

  HMSO

  25,000

  17,000

  15,000

  1 Reimbursed over three years.

  (c) The average amount of each claim in each of the last three years

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Cabinet Office (incl. OPSS)

  3,553

  4,664

  4,4668

  OPSS agencies:

  Civil Service College

  2,264

  3,567

  8,813

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (Provisional Outturn)

  UK £

  Overseas £

  UK £

  Overseas £

  UK £

  Overseas £

  Cabinet Office (incl. OPSS)

  280,500

  447,100

  262,500

  536,200

  263,300

  (a)

  OPSS agencies:

  Civil Service College

  66,100

  10,900

  63,800

  15,200

  51,200

  33,600

  Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety

  55,000

  —

  44,700

  —

  45,800

  —

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  8,100

  —

  6,000

  —

  4,200

  —

  Chessington Computer Centre

  11,800

  —

  7,400

  —

  6,200

  —

  COI

  331,700

  37,100

  275,700

  71,000

  217,400

  41,200

  Note:

  (a) not separately recorded from overseas travel.

  Subsistence expenditure by HMSO is not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19686]

  Mr. Horam
  (a and b) The overtime figures for the Cabinet Office, including No. 10 Downing street, and the agencies for which I am responsible are as follows:

  Number of hours

  £

  1992–93

  Central Department

  136,156

  1,112,678.70

  COI

  20,792

  188,377.80

  CS College

  6,477

  48,547.11

  HMSO

  111,904

  955,577.53

  OHS

  1,224

  9,278.58

  260

  (c) The average amount of each claim in each of the last three years

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety

  28,200

  Nil

  Nil

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  COI

  336

  19,300

  28,958

  HMSO

  5,000

  6,500

  6,500

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19550]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies on subsistence allowances for travel for each of the last three years, was as follows:

  Number of hours

  £

  RAS

  3,100

  21,287.27

  Chessington

  20,264

  136,663.39

  1993–94

  Central Department

  143,906

  1,193,747

  COI

  16,176

  151,505.49

  COI

  16,176

  151,505.49

  CS College

  6,781

  49,861.88

  HMSO

  134,702

  1,179,816.00

  OHS

  1,798

  13,847.84

  RAS

  2,907

  20,832.81

  Chessington

  16,178

  113,023.66

  1994–95

  Central Department

  122,048

  1,012,483.30

  COI

  13,187

  124,616.98

  CS College

  5,173

  39,798.75

  HMSO

  141,809

  1,209,716.20

  OHS

  2,646

  21,222.95

  RAS

  2,019

  13,628.68

  Chessington

  15,303

  111,320.71

  (c) The absence figures are as follows—days lost through sickness:
  261

  1992

  Number

  Central Department

  6,005

  COI

  5,415

  CS College

  954

  HMSO

  29,107

  OHS

  662

  RAS

  2,167

  Chessington

  4,264

  There are no figures available for the monetary equivalent of the total number of days lost to sickness. There are a number of variables involved in this calculation and it would be difficult to rely on the accuracy of this data.

  Details for 1993 were given in an answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February 1995, Official Report, columns 125–28. Data are not yet available for 1994.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19426]

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department employs one political adviser. Advisers' salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. There is currently a full-time grade 5 and a full-time grade 7.

  I have also been asked to reply for the Chief Whips' offices, which employ two political advisers and no economic advisers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use has been made of United Kingdom supplied equipment, with particular reference to the Shorland S550 armoured personnel carriers and Land Rover vehicles, by the Turkish armed forces in their recent action against the Kurds. [19393]

  Mr. David Davis
  It is not possible to monitor the end use of such equipment. Proposed UK arms sales to Turkey are subject to stringent licensing procedures. We do not grant licences for the sale of equipment which we believe is likely to be used for internal repression.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise the issue of the persecution of the Christian minority in Turkey with the Foreign Minister of Turkey during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom. [19496]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey for talks and lunch when he visited London on 6 April. He took the 262
  opportunity to raise again our concerns at Turkey's overall human rights performance.

  Japan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference in New York from 17 April raises under the review of compliance with article I of the treaty the recent allegations that the Aum Shinri Kyo religious group in Japan had obtained certain technologies that could assist in the development of nuclear weapons in contravention of article I. [19331]

  Mr. David Davis
  Japan is a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We believe that Japan is in full compliance with all her obligations under the NPT.

  Mehdad Ansari-Shirazi
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what capacity Mehdad Ansari-Shirazi was employed by Her Majesty's Government. [19132]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Mr. Ansari-Shirazi has never been employed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Cyprus
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to persuade the Government of Cyprus to agree to the confidence-building measures proposed by the UN and accepted by the leadership of Turkish Northern Cyprus on 21 January. [19216]

  Mr. David Davis
  We continue to make clear to both communities in Cyprus our support for the package of confidence—building measures proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General. We fully support UN Security Council resolution 939 of 29 July 1994 which called for further efforts to secure implementation of the confidence—building measures.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the UK in each of the last three years. [19554]

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

  UK Security
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of whether withdrawal from the European Union would jeopardise the UK's security; and from whence any consequent threats might arise; [19543]

  (2) what is the basis for the Government's belief that the security of the UK depends upon membership of the European Union; [19545]
  263
  (3) when Her Majesty's Government embraced the doctrine that the UK's security was dependent upon membership of the European Community. [19554]

  Mr. David Davis
  The security of the UK is assured through strong defence, a successful economy and our membership of a number of international institutions, in particular NATO but also the Western European Union, the EU, the UN and the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe. We have no intention of withdrawing from any of these institutions.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19660]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The details for the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are:

  (a) £

  (b) £

  (c) £

  1994–95

  47,941

  19,507

  6,849

  —

  10,672

  —

  —

  6,556

  —

  1993–94

  111,769

  25,958

  7,451

  —

  19,771

  —

  —

  17,143

  —

  1992–93

  216,447

  40,078

  12,025

  —

  22,534

  —

  —

  20,144

  —

  The details for the Overseas Development Administration are:

  (a) £

  (b) £

  (c) £

  1994–95

  56,733

  22,895

  14,183

  —

  22,315

  —

  —

  9,777

  —

  1993–94

  32,923

  29,619

  16,461

  —

  3,304

  —

  1992–93

  47,802

  33,428

  23,901

  —

  14,374

  —

  The details for Wilton Park, an executive agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are:

  (a) £

  (b) £

  (c) £

  1994–95

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1993–94

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  1992–93

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  264
  So far as the Natural Resources Institute, an executive agency of the Overseas Development Agency, is concerned, the chief executive will write separately to the hon. Gentleman when the figures have been collated.

  The figures exclude (a) the costs of posting officers overseas and (b) the costs of moving officers within the United Kingdom when this has not been caused by relocation of work.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which powers have offered the necessary transport to take the UNAVEM III—United Nations Angola unification mission—peacekeeping force to Angola when called upon. [19691]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British logistic battalion supporting UNAVEM III is being deployed to Angola in British military and civilian transport provided against an undertaking by the UN to repay the costs involved. We understand that other contingents will be deployed in commercial transport organised by the UN secretariat or using national resources against UN reimbursement.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19685]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of hours of overtime worked in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Wilton Park, an executive agency of the FCO, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The details for the Overseas Development Administration and the Natural Resources Institute are as follows:

  ODA

  NRI

  1994–95

  19,582

  1,297

  1993–94

  27,424

  1,538

  1992–93

  24,229

  1,263

  The total amount paid in overtime in the diplomatic wing, Wilton Park, ODA and NRI are:

  Diplomatic wing £

  Wilton Park £

  ODA £

  NRI £

  1994–95

  3,773,172

  17,587

  173,657

  11,053

  1993–94

  4,205,249

  17,314

  234,867

  12,438

  1992–93

  4,942,219

  12,166

  198,561

  10,667

  A comprehensive system for collating sick leave information for the diplomatic wing and Wilton Park was started only in 1994 and is now being completed. Details of the total time lost through sickness and its monetary equivalent in each of the last three years could therefore be collated only at disproportionate cost. Details of days lost through sickness in the ODA and NRI are:
  265

  ODA

  NRI

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  11,744

  2,641

  1992

  10,738

  2,921

  Neither the ODA nor NRI can provide figures for the monetary equivalent.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 April.

  Mr. David Davis
  "A" items listed in document 6418/95, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, were adopted with the exception of item 13 and item 22.

  The Commission reported on the state of play in negotiations on the EU-Tunisia agreement. The Committee of Permanent Representatives was mandated to find a solution to outstanding points at its meeting on 12 April.

  The Council adopted a declaration confirming the EU's willingness to help with the observation of Palestinian elections.

  The Council report of functioning of the Maastricht treaty was adopted without further amendment.

  The Commission secured the Council's agreement to continue negotiations with Canada over the EU-Canada fisheries dispute.

  The Commission reported that it was studying details of the Mohovce power station in Slovakia following concerns raised by a number of member states.

  The Council reviewed recent developments in the EU's relation with Mexico, Chile and Mercosur. The Commission will produce a negotiating mandate for a new agreement with Mexico and a paper discussing ways of strengthening relations with Chile. Commissioner Marin presented a negotiating mandate for a new agreement with Mercosur, which was referred to COREPER for further discussion.

  The Commission presented draft negotiating directives on long term EU-South Africa relations.

  The Council agreed on a need for an indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Juppe noted agreement to the draft joint action on anti-personnel mines which would be adopted by written procedure as soon as it had been finalised.

  A meeting of EU and central European Foreign Ministers took place. Among the subjects discussed were the forthcoming White Paper on approximation of laws, and common foreign and security policy issues including Chechnya, former Yugoslavia, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Baltic states and the stability pact.

  Øn Iran-Rushdie, the Council agreed the terms of a demarche to be made in Tehran on the basis of Political Committee opinion of 4 April.

  On Ukraine, the Council discussed preparations for the joint EU-G7 mission to Kiev on nuclear safety on 13 April.
  266
  On the Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq, the Council called for the withdrawal of all troops as soon as possible.

  The Council reconfirmed its view that the European Parliament's 1993 resolution on a uniform electoral procedure is too general to satisfy the specific treaty requirement for proposals under article 138(3).

  The first meetings of the association councils with the Czech Republic and Romania took place in the margins of the Council.

  On former Yugoslavia, Mr. Koschnik, the EU administrator of Mostar, reported on latest developments there.

  The Council took stock of developments in Chechnya and decided that further progress was required before it could agree to sign the EC-Russia interim agreement.

  Preparations for the Euro-Mediteranean conference were discussed. The presidency noted that external expenditure priorities would be discussed at the European Council at Cannes in June.

  On Burundi, agreement was reached on the need to continue diplomatic efforts, and to express support for the Organisation of African Unity ministerial mission.

  The presidency reviewed progress on proposals for greater transparency in the Council. The dossier was remitted to COREPER for further work.

  The presidency noted that no progress had been made in the negotiations on the size of EDFVIII.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will have on the fight against crime; and if he will make a statement. [18369]

  Mr. Howard
  The Act will make a significant contribution to the fight against crime. As the Police Federation has said, it will"enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of our society".

  As with any major new legislation, the implementation of its provisions will be monitored and evaluated.

  Female Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the number of women sent to prison in the last two years; and what assessment he has made of the reasons. [18370]

  Mr. Maclean
  Some 2,952 women were sentenced to immediate custody in 1994, compared with 2,158 in 1992.

  The total female prison population is approximately 2,000 compared to the total male prison population of approximately 50,000.

  The reason for the increase in the sentenced population of both groups is the rise in numbers sentenced to custody by the courts.

  Boot Camps
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the report on boot camps produced by Prison Service officials after their visit to the United States of America in May 1994. [18372]

  Mr. Howard
  The report was commissioned as advice to Ministers. I have, therefore, no plans to publish it.

  Betting and Gaming
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deregulate betting and gaming. [18373]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deregulate betting and gaming. [18383]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are reviewing the controls on gambling as part of the Government's deregulation initiative.

  We have made a number of changes to the law relating to small lotteries and the football pools and have removed certain restrictions on betting shop facilities. In addition, Sunday racing with on and off-course betting was introduced in January

  Earlier this month, we laid a draft deregulation order before Parliament to relax restrictions on betting at greyhound tracks. We have also gone out to consultation on proposals for an all-cash amusement-with-prizes machine in adult premises, including betting shops.

  Finally, we have to consult in the next few months on proposals on casino and bingo gaming, which will also include a review of the restrictions on the advertising of commercial gambling.

  Burglary
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the probability of any individual becoming a victim of burglary in(a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [18374]

  Mr. Maclean
  According to the general household survey one in 40 households in Great Britain experienced a burglary in a dwelling once or more in 1979 excluding attempts, and one in 22 in 1993.

  Probation Officers (Training)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to changing the standards of training of probation officers. [18375]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend published on 22 February a consultation document setting out proposals for reform of the present arrangements governing the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to visit East Anglia to tour the prisons in the region. [18376]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit any of the prisons in East Anglia.

  Prison Punishment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking to introduce pain into punishment in prisons. [18377]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. The purpose of imprisonment is to punish offenders by depriving them of their liberty, to protect the public from the commission of offences by those in prison and to reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend on release.

  Pub and Club Doorkeepers
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department issues to local authorities in respect of training to doorkeepers of pubs and clubs in their areas. [18378]

  Mr. Maclean
  None at present. We are considering issuing guidance to local authorities and the police on the setting up of local registration schemes for door supervisors.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to produce proposals regarding wheel clamping on private land. [18379]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend shall introduce proposals when he has come to firm conclusions on the right way ahead.

  Prisons (Hard Drugs)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of hard drugs in Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement. [18380]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The use of hard drugs in Her Majesty's prisons is monitored by the Home Office addicts index. During 1994, 4,784 hard drug addicts were reported to the index by prison medical officers.

  Additional information on the extent of the use of all drugs will be provided by random drug testing which is being introduced into all prison establishments in England and Wales.

  Merseyside Fire Brigade
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about the level of service provided by the Merseyside fire brigade since the publication by the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority of its budget for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [18381]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Since the authority set its budget on 28 February, my right hon and learned Friend has received one letter from an hon. Member forwarding a copy of a letter sent to the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority on behalf of a local tenants' forum. My right hon. and noble Friend met a deputation from the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority on 30 March.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual consignments of illicit drugs have been intercepted during
  269
  1994–95 to date; and what is the total estimated street value of those consignments. [18382]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest year for which the information requested is available is 1993, and this is contained in table 1.1 of the Home Office "Statistical Bulletin", No 28/94, "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, UK, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library. The Home Office does not collate information on the monetary value of seized illicit drugs.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are estimated to be on the beat full-time in the metropolitan area and at what cost to public funds; what were the figures(a) five and (b) 10 years previously; and if he will make a statement. [18719]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that in January 1995 there were 11,739 police officers on patrol in the Metropolitan police district—5,839 of these were assigned to foot patrol duties. The cost of this function is £485,115,000 per annum—£237,706,000 per annum for foot patrol officers.

  Comparable figures are not available for the earlier years requested.

  External Frontiers Convention
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to use the unanimity rule under article K4.3 of the Maastricht treaty to refuse to sign any final text of the external frontiers convention which includes a two thirds majority rule under the proviso to article K3. [19482]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government do not accept the Commission's proposal that all the implementing measures for the external frontiers convention should be adopted by a two-thirds majority and have made their view clear in discussions of the draft text.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make temazepam a schedule 3, rather than a schedule 4, drug; and if he will make a statement. [18996]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are considering in consultation with other Departments a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to tighten the controls on temazepam, and hope to be able to announce the outcome soon.

  Transferred Prisoners
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy on moving prisoners from one prison to another; [17725]

  (2) what representations he has received about the treatment of prisoners known as ghosting; and if he will make a statement. [17724]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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.
  270
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Douglas French, dated 20 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the movement of prisoners from one prison to another; and the representations he has received about the treatment of prisoners known as ghosting.
  Prisoners are moved from one prison to another only when there are compelling operational reasons for doing so. Transfers can take place for a number of reasons, the usual considerations being the needs of security and control, the needs of the individual prisoner and the need to make the best use of all available accommodation.
  Representations have recently been made by a number of organisations and individuals about cases where prisoners have been moved to other establishments without any prior notice being given, a practice described as 'ghosting' in some quarters. These cases involve Category A prisoners who, for security reasons, are not given notice of transfers to other prisons.

  Bowbelle-Marchioness Collision
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which statements made by the crew members of the Bowbelle to officers of the Metropolitan police on 20 August 1989 in connection with its sinking of the Marchioness were sent(a) without request, (b) after request (c) were not sent at all to the inspectors of the marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport for the purposes of its inquiry; on what dates such statements, or a refusal to do so, were dispatched; and if such statements were sent in full. [19778]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that no statements were taken by his officers from crew members of the Bowbelle on 20 August 1989.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available to relatives of the deceased the file of evidence on the Marchioness disaster sent by the City of London police to the Crown Prosecution Service to enable it to consider whether or not the evidence contained therein was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for an offence reflected in the loss of life; and if he will list the evidence not contained in that file which was accepted as proper evidence for the jury in the inquest recently concluded. [19777]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I understand that the police investigation in this case was carried out by the Metropolitan police, not the City of London police. It is not police practice to disclose evidence submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. The conduct of the inquest is entirely a matter for the coroner.

  River Thames (Breathalysers)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements for the Thames division of the Metropolitan police to be equipped with breathalysers for use on the tideway reaches of the River Thames within its jurisdiction for use when it has reason to believe port byelaws or rules of navigation have been disregarded. [19773]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Procedural Changes (Metropolitan Police)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in procedure have been made by the Metropolitan police since August 1989 concerning procedures for the severing of hands from deceased persons for purposes related to police inquiries; in what circumstances and by whom such actions are currently authorised; and for what purposes. [19774]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the procedures followed by his officers in these circumstance are being revised. Such action will in future be taken only in wholly exceptional circumstances, where all other means of identification have proved unsuccessful, and on the written authority of the coroner.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date his Department asked individual police forces to provide information to his Department on the costs involved in investigating alleged miscarriages of justice; when this information was received by his Department; and what costs(a) to individual forces and (b) in total were revealed by analysis of the returns. [19741]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Information was requested on a sample of 16 cases from 11 police forces in January 1995. Replies were received in respect of seven cases, the most recent on 30 March. The estimated total costs of the inquiries undertaken in each of these seven cases was as follows:

  Estimated total costs £

  Case 1: Avon and Somerset constabulary

  5,541.02

  Case 2: Lancashire constabulary

  570.04

  Case 3: Northumbria police

  3,113.02

  Case 4: Devon and Cornwall constabulary

  122,386.28

  Case 5: West Midlands police

  98,610

  Case 6: West Midlands police

  18,072

  Case 7: Greater Manchester police

  192,913

  It is not possible to estimate the overall costs of miscarriage of justice investigations to the police service or to individual forces.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive's office buildings in Bootle were last inspected by the relevant local authority to ensure they fully complied with all current legislation, with particular reference to toilet facilities, removal of all asbestos, canteen facilities and rest rooms and space standards; and what was the result of the inspection. [17310]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Records held by the Health and Safety Executive's headquarters office in Bootle indicate that a full inspection of its buildings encompassing a check of their compliance with all current legislation, has 272
  not been undertaken by the relevant local authority within the last eight years. Records do not extend back beyond eight years.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget for the Health and Safety Executive in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) each year since 1990; and what is the forecast budget for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, and (iii) 1998–99. [19438]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive's grant in aid for each of the years requested is shown in the following table:

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  56

  1985–86

  93

  1989–90

  103

  1990–91

  120

  1991–92

  159

  1992–93

  173

  1993–94

  180

  1994–95

  188

  1995–96

  187

  Present planned provision for 1996–97 and 1997–98 is £187 million and £186 million respectively. Plans for 1998–99 depend on the outcome of the 1995 public expenditure survey.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the mode number within the Health and Safety Executive for Health and Safety Executive inspectors in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) each year since 1990; what is the current average; and what is the estimated average for 1996. [19469]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available figures are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Average

  Median

  1979–80

  1,435.5

  1,435.5

  1985–86

  1,242.5

  1,244.5

  1990–91

  1,264.5

  1,244.0

  1991–92

  1,396.0

  1,385.0

  1992–93

  1,507.5

  1,508.0

  1993–94

  1,578.0

  1,580.0

  1994–95

  1,530.5

  1,537.0

  1995–961

  1,499.0

  1,499.0

  1Estimated.

  Because of the way in which inspector numbers fluctuate, it is not possible to calculate a mode statistic. The figures are not comparable, year to year, because there have been successive changes in the Health and Safety Executive's responsibilities.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the mode number of inspections an HSE inspector made in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) each year since 1990; and what is the estimate for (1) 1995, (2) 1996, (3) 1997 and (4) 1998. [19470]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The average numbers of planned inspections completed by each of the Health and Safety Executive's operational division's field inspectors, for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are set
  273
  out in the following table. Median and modal averages are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Comparable figures for 1979 and 1985 are not available.

  Average number of planned inspections completed or planned by HSE operational division's field inspectors per year

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Planned

  1995–96 Planned

  Field operations division planned inspections per inspector

  496

  493

  467

  443

  420

  380

  Mines inspectorate planned inspections per inspector

  180

  167

  195

  203

  165

  175

  Offshore safety division planned inspections per inspector1

  —

  16

  12

  13

  11

  7

  Railway inspectorate planned inspections per inspector2

  —

  271

  179

  141

  198

  183

  Technology and health sciences division planned inspections per inspector

  41

  48

  65

  66

  49

  49

  1 HSE assumed responsibility for offshore safety on 1 April 1991. 2 The railway inspectorate transferred from the Department of Transport on 3 December 1990.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Her Majesty's inspectors of factories there were in each grade in each year since 1979. [19437]

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Chief Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  6

  6

  Senior Area Director

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Superintending Inspector/Area Director

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  20

  22

  Deputy Superintending Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  44

  42

  Inspector 1A

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  154

  152

  156

  Inspector 1B

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  355

  329

  295.5

  Inspector Class 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49

  69

  97

  Total

  742.5

  759.5

  735

  678.5

  654.5

  627

  651

  623

  621.5

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Chief Inspector

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Deputy Chief Inspector

  4

  4

  4

  5

  6

  4

  2

  3

  Senior Area Director

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  7

  9

  Superintending Inspector/Area Director

  21

  19

  22

  25

  23

  24

  23

  18

  Deputy Superintending Inspector

  43

  38

  34

  28

  26

  28

  24

  16

  Inspector 1A

  158.5

  162.5

  161.5

  163

  173

  172

  175.5

  158

  Inspector 1B

  270

  276.5

  269

  263

  266.5

  278

  312

  358

  Inspector Class 2

  92

  99

  139

  163

  199

  197.5

  159

  96

  Total

  592.5

  604

  634.5

  651

  698.5

  707.5

  702.5

  658

  Information about factory inspectors by grade is not available before 1985.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors there were in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) each year since 1990; and what are the estimates for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [19439]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available figures are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Average inspector numbers

  1979–80

  1,435.5

  1985–86

  1,242.5

  1990–91

  1,264.5

  1991–92

  1,396

  1992–93

  1,507.5

  1993–94

  1,578

  1994–95

  1,530.5

  1995–96 (planned)

  1,499

  274
  The table also indicates the average numbers of planned inspections divisions expected to achieve in 1994–95 and plan to achieve in 1995–96. Detailed estimates for the years 1996–97 and 1997–98 are not available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available figures for the number of factory inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April for each year are as follows:

  Unemployment, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unemployment rate in Liverpool; what is the long-term unemployment rate; how many children live in households where no parent works; and what are the corresponding national figures. [18944]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information is given in the following tables:

  Table 1: Claimant unemployment (unadjusted for seasonality)

  Claimant unemployment rate percentage

  1Claimants unemployed over one year as a percentage of the workforce

  Liverpool Travel-to-Work Area

  January 1995

  13.1

  6.0

  February 1995

  12.8

  n/a

  275

  Table 1: Claimant unemployment (unadjusted for seasonality)

  Claimant unemployment rate percentage

  1Claimants unemployed over one year as a percentage of the workforce

  United Kigdom

  January 1995

  8.9

  3.3

  February 1995

  8.7

  n/a

  1 Data by duration are available only every quarter in Jan, Apr, July and October.

  Table 2: ILO unemployment—labour force survey, unadjusted for seasonality

  ILO unemployment rate Percentage

  ILO unemployed over one year as a percentage of the economically active

  Merseyside

  Autumn 1994

  13.8

  8.1

  Great Britain

  Autumn 1994

  8.9

  3.9

  Table 3: Children living in households where the parents are (1) ILO unemployed or (2) not in employment1

  Autumn 1994, unadjusted for seasonality

  Merseyside

  Great Britain

  In households where:

  Parent(s) ILO unemployed

  31,000

  316,000

  Parent(s) not in employment1

  110,000

  2,700,000

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to two-parent families where both parents are ILO unemployed/not in employment, or one-parent families where the parent is ILO unemployed/not in employment.

  1 ILO unemployed or economically inactive.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to proposals for the involvement of ACAS at the outset of an industrial dispute. [19311]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The quinquennial review of ACAS conducted by the Employment Department in 1992–93, examined all aspects of the service's operations. It concluded that the current system of voluntary conciliation in industrial disputes worked well and there are therefore no plans to change this at present.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with how many(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large organisations in terms of numbers employed, ACAS has been involved in attempting to settle disputes in each of the last five years. [19312]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service provides assistance in settling disputes through conciliation in collective industrial disputes and through conciliation in most individual employment rights cases, where complaints have been or could be made to an industrial tribunal.
  276
  In 1994, ACAS was requested to provide collective conciliation in 1,313 cases, as follows:

  Number of employees in establishment

  Percentage of requests

  1–49

  13

  50–199

  29

  200–999

  37

  1,000+

  21

  I regret that it is not possible to provide a similar breakdown for previous years, but the total number of collective conciliation requests received in the previous four years is shown in the following list:

  1993: 1,211

  1992: 1,207

  1991: 1,386

  1990: 1,260

  As regards individual conciliation cases, no records are kept of the size of the respondents' organisations. However, the following figures relate to cases completed in 1990–91 and derived from the Employment Department's 1992 survey of industrial tribunal applications. These show the distribution of industrial tribunal cases in four of the jurisdictions where ACAS conciliation officers were statutorily required to intervene, by size of organisation.

  Distribution of Industrial Tribunal Cases in which ACAS Conciliation Officers were statutorily required to intervene, 1990–91

  Number of employees

  Percentage of Cases

  PRIVATE FIRMS

  Sole establishments

  1–19

  16.2

  20–49

  9.5

  50+

  10.0

  Organisations (Multiple establishments) up to 200

  14.6

  201—1,000

  11.3

  1.000+

  23.0

  PUBLIC SECTOR

  All sizes

  15.7

  Source:

  Data on unfair dismissal, Wages Act, sex discrimination and race discrimination cases taken from the 1992 survey of industrial tribunal applications, Employment Department, research series No. 22, 1994.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the funding that ACAS has received in each of the last five years. [19166]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service received the following grant in aid for the last five years:

  1990–91: £17,463,000

  1991–92: £19,549,000

  1992–93: £21,661,000

  1993–94: £22,451,000

  1994–95: £22,012,000

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what methods other than legislation exist
  277
  to counter the problem of unfair payment practices for construction workers. [19315]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Payment practices, like other terms and conditions of employment, are a matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees—or their representatives—subject to existing law.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many building workers are currently under contract not to be paid unless their employer receives the fee for the work concerned; and in what other sectors of the economy this practice is operated. [19307]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  We do not have such information, as contractual matters are for the parties to agree.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers have not been paid as their construction employers had become insolvent in each of the last five years. [19309]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the construction industry on workers' conditions of employment; and what were the results of these talks. [19308]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have had no such discussions. Terms and conditions of employment are matters for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees—or their representatives—subject to existing law.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made as to whether legislation in main competitor countries that all workers be paid for their work in main competitor countries has helped growth in the construction industry through attracting skilled workers. [19314]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Wages
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to introduce legislation to guarantee that all workers would be paid for their work. [19313]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Wages Act 1986 already makes unauthorised deduction from due wages unlawful. Workers who have not received the wages to which they are entitled at the time when payment is due can make a compliant to an industrial tribunal.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18647]
  278
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: As the green Minister for the Department, I can inform the hon. Member that the Department's green initiatives are described in the 1995 departmental report, Cm 2805, at paragraphs 8.45 to 8.50, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  I and all my ministerial colleagues share the common objective of promoting sustainable development, and I am consulted on relevant proposals and developments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the guidance in respect of the new incapacity benefit which is given to(a) Benefits Agency medical service doctors who will be administering the all-work test and the mental health test for the new incapacity benefit, (b) to adjudication officers and (c) to the medical assessors to the social security appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [19133]

  Mr. Hague
  Guidance for BAMS doctors involved in assessing incapacity for work entitled "The Medical Advisers' Guide to Incapacity Benefit" has been issued. Copies have been placed in the Library. The chief adjudication officer published his guidance as an amendment to the adjudication officer's guide on 20 March. Copies of this are in the Library. Guidance to medical assessors is a matter for the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte. He will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of absent parents deemed by the Child Support Agency to be paying child support maintenance for the first time are claiming one of the social security benefits prescribed in section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991; and what proportion are claiming any other state benefit or allowance; [18823]

  (2) what proportion of absent parents who are deemed by the Child Support Agency to be paying child support maintenance for the first time claimed on the maintenance inquiry form that they were already paying child support maintenance; [18824]

  (3) how many parents with care claim to be receiving no child support maintenance payments in cases where the absent parents have stated on the maintenance inquiry form that they are already paying child support maintenance. [18820]

  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 Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the proportion of absent parents on certain benefits and the proportion who were, or who were not already paying child maintenance when their cases were taken on by the Child Support Agency.

  279
  We estimate that 41 percent of all absent parents are in receipt of a social security benefit; 31 percent of all absent parents are in receipt of income support; and less than 2 percent are in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance.
  We estimate from our sampling that of the cases taken on between April 1994 and February 1995, about 77 percent of parents with care were not receiving child maintenance.
  Records of disputes between parents are not kept, but once an assessment is made, the Agency will resolve conflicting information concerning relevant payments of child maintenance.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of parents with care receiving child support maintenance which has been arranged by the Child Support Agency are in receipt of the lone parent premium or have indicated on the maintenance application form that they are lone parents. [18819]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the proportion of parents with care with maintenance arranged by the Child Support Agency who are lone parents.
  We estimate that 92 per cent of parents with care (PWC) who have had their maintenance arranged by the Agency are lone parents. This figure includes PWCs who receive a lone parent premium within their benefit entitlement.
  I hope this is of help.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the weekly income of absent parents who have been the subject of a child maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency. [18827]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the weekly income of absent parents who have been the subject of a maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency.
  The average net weekly income for absent parents who have declared an income from employment is estimated to be just under £196.00.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deduction of earnings orders have been issued by the Child Support Agency; how many of these orders have subsequently been withdrawn; and how many of these orders have been shown to contain errors. [18828]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction from earnings orders (DEOs) issued by the Child Support Agency.
  Since launch to the end of February 1995, the Agency has issued a total of 32,483 DEOs; 29,883 of which have been issued since April 1994.
  No information is currently collected on the number of DEO's subsequently withdrawn or found to contain errors. The Agency is, however, investigating ways of measuring the effectiveness and quality of DEO's issued.
  280
  I hope this is of help.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many child support maintenance assessments have been made by the Child Support Agency, broken down by the amount per week of the assessment. [18826]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne dated 20 April 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of assessments made by the Child Support Agency and the amount per week of those assessments.
  The table at Annex A shows the number of full maintenance assessments (FMA) and interim maintenance assessments (IMA) as at 11 March 1995, banded into weekly liability.
  I hope this is of help.

  ANNEX A—Weekly maintenance for full/interim assessments where the Absent Parent is not receiving Income Support1

  £

  FMA2

  IMA3

  Total cases assessed

  132,300

  87,500

  2.31–5.00

  1,800

  0

  5.01–9.99

  4,500

  0

  10.00–19.99

  11,800

  0

  20.00–29.99

  15,100

  0

  30.00–39.99

  18,800

  1,100

  40.00–49.99

  18,600

  3,000

  50.00–59.99

  17,000

  8,700

  60.00–69.99

  17,800

  3,000

  70.00–79.99

  13,100

  2,500

  80.00–89.99

  7,700

  1,900

  90.00–99.99

  3,600

  30,300

  100.00–109.99

  1,300

  12,900

  110.00–119.99

  400

  13,300

  Over 120

  800

  10,800

  1 Excluding cases assessed at the minimum rate of £2.30.

  2 Includes Category 'B' IMAs (where information about the income of the partner, or other member of the family, of an AP or parent with care has not been provided to the CSO and it is information which could have been provided):

  3 Excludes Category "B" IMAs

  War Pension Applications
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of staff needed to process war pension applications. [19075]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These are matters for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent-Parliamentary Question about the assessment of the number of staff needed to process war pension applications.
  Resources allocated to the War Pension Agency are made in cash terms rather than specifically in numbers of staff. The amount allocated in 1995/96 for processing war pension applications is a total of £12.9 million, within which figure the number of staff has been assessed at 1072.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Housing Benefit (Fraud)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions are issued by his Department
  281
  to local authorities about the prevention of fraud with respect to payments of housing benefits. [19091]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  General housing benefit anti-fraud guidance has been provided for all local authorities since the introduction of the present housing benefit scheme in 1988. Expanded anti-fraud guidance was issued in 1991. The Department also collaborated with the Chartered 282
  Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and the Local Authority Investigation Officers' Group (UK) to issue an anti-fraud good practice guide for local authorities in 1991. The Department plans to issue a comprehensive fraud investigator's manual, giving detailed guidance on the investigation and prevention of fraud, to all local authorities later this year.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

European Union: Political Implications
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that, were the United Kingdom to implement all the provisions on economic and monetary union in the Maastricht Treaty, this would lead to political union with Europe.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government do not believe that the implementation by the United Kingdom of the provisions on economic and monetary union would lead inevitably to political union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which I find somewhat difficult to reconcile with Article 105 of the Maastricht Treaty and Article 12 of the Protocol on the European Central Bank which, between them, give up our control of interest rates, cede our ability to print our own currency and give away our sovereignty over the holding and management of our foreign reserves to unaccountable foreign bankers in Frankfurt. Therefore, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that we will never lose the freedom to tax and to spend? Surely, my noble friend must agree that all these powers are such well-established and longstanding hallmarks of our sovereignty that to lose them would be to lose our political independence.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government guard very jealously their fiscal powers. They do not intend to take any steps which would in any way erode our sovereignty in these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not my noble friend find it very difficult to deal with this immensely complex and important matter by way of an Answer to an oral Question?
Noble Lords,Noble Lords, Hear! Hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in his analysis. It is an extremely complicated matter.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the currency is primarily a means of trading the country's wealth and belongs to the inhabitants of this country and not to the Government? Does he further agree that it will have to be pooled in order to create a single currency and that the sterling bank note is a promissory note issued against that wealth? Can my noble friend tell the House what the mechanism will be for seeing that the wealth of the British people is not used to finance the debts of other
572
countries which have joined a single currency or indeed for preventing the country incurring the debts of the citizens of those other countries?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of extremely hypothetical matters. The Government have not the slightest intention of allowing any of the things he has described to happen.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have another five minutes to go before the next Question. Does the noble Lord agree that this is a profoundly complex and important question? Despite the noises from behind the noble Lord, it is right and proper that this House should explore all the implications and possibilities of economic and monetary union. Does he agree with his right honourable friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union has profound political implications for this country? Since he actually read the treaty and the present Chancellor did not, is he not more likely to be correct than the present Chancellor?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, almost surprisingly, I find myself in a great deal of agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, says. As already mentioned, this is an extremely important matter. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that it has very significant political implications. That is why on many occasions in this House and in the other place, and doubtless on many occasions in the future, this matter will be debated in considerable depth and at length.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, given the present turbulence in the world currency markets, would it not be an immense advantage to a trading nation like Britain to have the stability of a single European Union currency if the conditions are right?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is clearly to the benefit of a country such as ours that there should be stable currencies, as it is for all countries. The disagreements that there may be among us no doubt relate to the methods of achieving that.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that monetary union, as envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty, must inevitably lead to an element of fiscal union? Is that not one reason why the Government are so wise to keep their options open?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. It seems to be both the most intelligent and sensible approach to see what this is all about and to take a decision at the appropriate moment on what we want to do.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the Government to defer making a decision on political union until they have read the papers, which one hopes they will do in due course. Will the

573
Government bear in mind the existing situation where we are operating, possibly unknown to them, under bureaucratic union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in reply to that question, I should like to make it clear that the Government's position on political union is absolutely clear. We do not want it and we are not going to participate in it.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one thing at least is clear; that those who put forward the idea of monetary union in the first place did so entirely for political purposes? Secondly, does he agree that one thing is unclear? I refer to how the Official Opposition can be against the idea of an independent central bank in principle if it is British but in favour of an independent central bank if it is European?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments with which I concur. On his second point, I find it difficult to see how those views tie together, but the duty to explain that is not mine. It is that of the Opposition.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I intervene with the greatest reluctance between two such distinguished spokesmen. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will allow the Official Opposition to speak first.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether it is the Government's view that, should Britain join a monetary union, the Government's control of monetary policy would be increased or diminished?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that would depend on the circumstances at the time. It is one of the matters we shall be taking into account when we consider whether or not to join at whatever moment that decision has to be taken.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as the noble Lord completely rejected the whole concept of political union a very short time ago—admittedly, it is not a wholly precise concept—will he explain how the Government reconcile that with their commitment to an ever-closer union to which they subscribed in treaty after treaty—from Rome to the single market—long before Maastricht?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the concept of "political union", as that phrase is commonly used in this country, is understood by the Government to mean the creation of a single European state. That is not what is referred to in the preambles to the treaties.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if the Government were to consider in future that it might be necessary to adopt some of the aspects of
574
economic and monetary union this House would be provided with opportunities to comment thereon before such action was made official?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that with absolute certainty.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

British-German Deregulation Group: Report
3.16 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on the recent report of the British-German deregulation group set up by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl to consider the need for measures for deregulation of business within the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government welcome the report, in particular the recommendations for a specific leader on deregulation within the Commission; a deregulation checklist; and a permanent business voice in European policy-making. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl will be discussing the report at the forthcoming Anglo-German summit.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that report gives examples of the kind of mindless and unnecessary meddling by the Commission which puts up prices and destroys jobs and which does no good to the reputation of the European Union? Is my noble friend aware that the Government will have widespread support for any action that they can take to follow up that report? Does he also agree that the report makes clear how wise the Government were to secure at Maastricht an opt-out from the social chapter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as regards his last point, my noble friend is absolutely right. Opting out of the social chapter has resulted in us being far more economical in terms of labour costs than would have been the case if we had been a member of it. As regards the first part of his question, my noble friend is correct that we should not become involved with any kind of regulation which is not of importance. Perhaps I may paraphrase something that was said by somebody: "If it is not absolutely necessary to make law, it is absolutely necessary not to". That is what we hope will guide the Commission as well as ourselves.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over many years many businesses ancillary to agriculture have suffered from regulations under the aegis of the CAP? Will the present effort to deregulate cover those businesses also?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, any form of deregulation that is undertaken whether by the United Kingdom or Europe will apply right across the board. In so far as

575
regulations relating to the common agricultural policy may prove to be unnecessary, it would be in the interests of all if those regulations were to be removed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, dealing with the noble Earl's point that we should not have regulations unless they are of real and substantial importance, is he aware of a proposal that was issued by the Commission on 14th March (COM (95)42 Final) which consists of a mass of gobbledegook advocating the establishment of a level playing field for direct investment worldwide, for which by its own explanatory memorandum the noble Earl's department, the DTI, indicated mild support? Will the noble Earl undertake personally to read that mass of meaningless material with a view to intervening appropriately in the Council of Ministers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not think that this Question would go by without some helpful intervention by the noble Lord. He has of course drawn attention to one specific document issued by the Commission. I am not familiar with that document, but if it is all that stupid, irrelevant, and full of gobbledegook, I cannot see much point in me reading it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may reply. It was in order to be of assistance to Ministers in emancipating themselves from some of the stuff that is issued by their own officials.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some of the stuff that is issued by my own officials, as the noble Lord puts it, is very useful and is not of an insignificant nature. I do not see that it should conflict necessarily with anything that the European Union suggests.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are very worried by the rumour about not being able to eat square strawberries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure under what regulation that comes, but it is a very odd one. If my noble friend has any evidence of such a regulation, I shall certainly look into it. My guess is that it is completely wrong.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we, too, on these Benches are in favour of removing unnecessary regulations from the statute book, especially when they are duplications, as turned out to be the case with nearly half the regulations recently removed by the Government? Is the Minister aware that among the main recommendations of the Anglo-German deregulation group are strong proposals to limit tobacco advertising? As those recommendations come from a group set up and supported by the Government are they the final argument which will persuade the Government to act now on tobacco advertising?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the group to which the noble Lord refers is an expert group of independent members from all European Union member states whose chairman is Dr. Molitor. It will make its report to the Council of Ministers in June, and I hope that it will encourage deregulation. I do not propose to answer the
576
specific point about tobacco advertising; that is something that we shall have to discover when the report is published.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the constant manufacture of myths about Europe which frighten everyone and reach the press? When it is discovered that there is no truth in them, such as the one about straight bananas, the denial does not reach the press. So I hope that my noble friend will treat the concern of my noble friend Lady Strange with the suitable reserve that it deserves?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful question. The idea that there are straight bananas or square strawberries is absurd. I know of no such regulations. I agree that such interventions do not help our cause within Europe. I am just surprised that they did not come from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that here is a fine example of the UK, with Germany, leading in an area which will be so helpful to business? I wonder what my noble friend will be doing in relation to the deregulation checklist and the 12 point action plan to get the other EU countries on board.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the report which has been made has been sent to all Cabinet Ministers, all deregulation Ministers, British embassies in Europe, and other international posts and officials who are concerned with deregulation. It is also being distributed widely to business and other interested organisations in the UK, the European Union, and internationally, so that people are well aware of it. It is our intention and our desire to ensure that efforts will be made to see that the President of the Commission and other European Union heads of state give the findings of the report serious consideration. I hope that they will do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to delay matters, but one of the reasons why I did not join in the questioning originally was that I have never seen this report. The Minister has given us a long list of people who have been allowed to see it. Will he explain how the rest of us are supposed to take part in debates on these matters if no effort is ever made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister or Chancellor Kohl so that those of us who are interested might get to see these reports? It is all very well Cabinet Ministers seeing them, what about the rest of us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was asked what efforts the Government were making to ensure that these matters were taken note of, and I explained who is being sent copies of the report. If the noble Lord has not received a copy, I shall see that he gets one and that copies are put in the PPO for all noble Lords to see.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether we should get on. We have two more Questions.

Benefits: Interim Payments
3.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What legal means of support are available to people refused benefit under the habitual residence rules pending the hearing of their appeals.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, interim payments of benefit may be made where a person is awaiting the outcome of an appeal, where it appears that there is, or may be, entitlement to that benefit. Payments are not, however, automatic. Decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual claim.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate Richmond House on reading the letters page in the Independent. How many payments have been made under the provision the Minister has quoted?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information. Information about refused or granted interim payments is kept at local level. It would be both complicated and expensive to collect that information centrally.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, what is the position with regard to the wives and children of such men?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is not just men, I have to say, when I look through the list of people who have been refused benefit because they are not habitually resident in the UK. If a family comes here and none of its members is an habitual resident, then it will not receive the benefit that we are discussing.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the people concerned are found, on appeal, to be habitually resident? Is he aware that many of them have nowhere else to go? Does the department know anything about what happens to them while they are deprived of money pending their appeal? If not, why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot agree that many have won on appeal, because the total number to date amounts to about 38,000 people. If people come to this country from the European Economic Area or from another pan of the world and do not pass the habitual residence test, the simple answer to the noble Earl's question is that they return whence they came.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of these people are British nationals and have no home in any other country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, something like 3,000 British citizens have failed the test, and 23,500 have passed it. The list of British nationals I have seen shows clearly that they are people who have close contacts with other countries. British nationality does not necessarily mean that they are habitually
578
resident in this country. I do not see any reason—nor, I suspect, do any of my countrymen—why they should necessarily be able to come here and immediately claim benefit.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the Government's principal purposes is to protect British taxpayers' money and not to allow it to be used by people who come here from abroad, claim habitual residence and then gain all the benefits to which this country's taxpayers have subscribed? Can we get across the message that we are not a soft touch?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I very much hope that now we have come into line with, for example, other EEA states on such matters, people, certainly from the European Union, will not see us as a good place in which to indulge in a bit of benefit tourism. I hope that those British citizens whose habitual residences are abroad will, thanks to the publicity arising from the Government's new decision, realise that they must think twice before they leave their home countries to come here.

School Class Sizes
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of classes in maintained schools in England and Wales had over 30 pupils at the last available census point.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in primary schools, 23 per cent. of single teacher classes contained over 30 pupils; that is, 23.2 per cent. in England and 20.6 per cent. in Wales. Figures for secondary schools are not available for Wales but the proportion of classes in England with over 30 pupils was 5.3 per cent. In all cases, the proportion of classes with over 30 pupils has declined substantially since 1979.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter that Gillian Shephard sent a few weeks ago to the Prime Minister and to other members of the Cabinet in which she warned that if the Government's policies were to be put into effect there would be a loss of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching places and that class sizes would shoot up? Is it not time that the Government listened to their own Secretary of State before overriding her and making the conditions for our schoolchildren even worse?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, not yet being a member of the Cabinet, I am afraid that I have not seen the letter. I am glad that it has reached the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I understand that such a letter may have been leaked to the press. We are now further on than when that letter was sent and we shall see how local authorities have coped with the settlement that they received this year.

579
As a result of recent announcements, my impression is that they are coping a great deal better than they said they would.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since 1979 expenditure on education has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms; that during the past four years the total number of teachers has stood at about 390,000; that local authority schools have considerable reserves; and that local authorities have the power to give added money to education departments? Should not all those issues be put ahead of the threats that have been made to damage schoolchildren?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we very much regret the use by some local authorities and others of threats which, in the event, it is clear they had no intention of carrying out but were merely to gain political advantage. We believe that the interests of the children should come first and that such incidents should not happen.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I make no comment on the noble Lord joining the Cabinet, in particular in the presence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Is it not a fact that during the past two or three years the number of pupils in oversized classes has risen? More importantly, in the Government's judgment, as a result of the likely pay settlement, will the size of classes rise this year or next year? Will the Minister give a guarantee that whatever else happens no such deterioration, which would be a continuation of a recent deterioration, will occur?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I confirm that during the past few years class sizes have risen in general, as have the number of classes with more than 30 pupils. Perhaps I may summarise what has happened. The number of pupils has been rising at a time when education spending has been keeping pace with costs and with the number of existing teachers but without allowing for an increased number of teachers. That appears to be exactly the right thing to do at a time of recession and at a time of financial stringency. It is clear from all the research available to us that there is no major disbenefit arising from slight increases in class size.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister absolutely certain that a time of recession is the time to intensify financial stringency? Would it not make sense in a time of recession somewhat to ease public expenditure, in particular in education, so that one gains certain benefits?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the effects of increased education expenditure are long term. One should not look to increasing education expenditure in a recession in order to get out of that recession. There must be better ways of spending to achieve that, if that is what one believes should happen.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country is greatly in debt to dedicated teachers from John o'Groats to Land's End whose major concern is the well-being of the children? Is he further
580
aware that it would be most unfortunate if a war of attitudes were declared between members of that distinguished profession, which I once had the honour of belonging to, and those in public service? Will the Minister bear in mind that when teachers ask for 30 pupils per class as a maximum they do so in the interests of the children and not of themselves?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the noble Viscount's last point, yes, I cannot but agree. Clearly, if the Government were to put in funds so that no class should ever be more than 30 in number, that would severely, and for a long time, restrict the Government's ability to pay any increase to teachers. Surely, yes, it must be entirely noble of teachers to be looking in that direction. What is less than noble of them is the idea that they should go on strike to achieve that. I hope that what the noble Viscount said about teachers in the first part of his Question, with which I totally agree, will be borne out when they come to vote on the resolutions which, sadly, were passed at their conferences.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that these complaints are made for party political advantage? Can he tell the House why his party's councillors in Warwickshire and elsewhere are so strongly in agreement with them?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I said "in some cases". I believe that in this year, when there has been a hard settlement, there are some areas of real problems, and we have always said that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, important though class size is, the professional quality of good teaching is very much more important? Would he also agree that were many of our teachers to abandon their Left-wing teaching practices, presumably so favoured by the Benches opposite, and concentrate more on teaching children the phonic method of reading, for example, our children would have a very much better education, and that there should be fewer examples of the kind of outrageous behaviour perpetrated by the teaching unions in the past few days?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, it is clear that one of the reasons why some teachers find it difficult to teach large classes is that they are using teaching methods which are entirely inappropriate. They are still back in the trendy 1960s, trying to use totally child-centred approaches, which are inappropriate not only for a class size of 30 but for any size of class. We hope very much that the progress being made by Ofsted and others will result in great improvements in the quality of teaching. We believe that that is where the benefits to the pupils will come from and that reductions in class sizes, at great expense, would have only marginal benefits.

Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to
introduce a Bill to amend Section 2 of the Commonwealth Development

581
Corporation Act 1978 to confer further powers on the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will be aware, one of the functions of the Law Commission and of the Scottish Law Commission is to promote,
"the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".
The Law Commissions have during the past 26 years presented to Parliament 15 reports on statute law revision with draft Bills attached. The 14 previous reports have resulted in the repeal of nearly 3,800 enactments, including almost 1,600 whole Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 223 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from 259 others.
The repeals set out in Schedule 1 to the draft Bill are in six parts. They cover local legislation applying in both England and Scotland and they apply also to such areas as overseas jurisdiction, the citation of statutes and transport. As always, the work of the two Law Commissions has revealed a good number of points of historical interest in the antiquity of some aspects of the present law. For example, the oldest statute to be repealed is an Act of 1694 passed to restore and rebuild the town centre of Warwick after it had been destroyed by fire. The Act expired in 1704. It is an interesting coincidence that Warwickshire was referred to recently. The most recent of the local Acts to be repealed are a group of such Acts applying in certain areas of Scotland dating from 1977 to 1981. Those Acts were superseded in 1982. There has been full consultation with interested bodies on those and all the other repeals.
I draw your Lordships' attention to Part I, which rationalises the vast amount of local authority legislation in Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire. In its explanatory note, the Law Commission says that the,
"bulk, uncertain operation and inaccessibility of local legislation are problems of long standing."
A detailed review of such legislation for those counties has been carried out by Mr. John Phipps as consultant to the Law Commission and completed with the co-operation of the local authorities concerned. This is the second such project to have been brought to fruition. The first covered South Yorkshire and was enacted by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989. I hope that more will be completed.
This Bill and its predecessors play a valuable part in the work of modernising and improving the statute book. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in thanking the two Law Commissions for the very careful and detailed way in which they have set about
582
this important task. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on Tuesday, in reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was able to confirm that there is a gathering momentum in securing the passage of legislation in politically non-controversial areas of law reform deriving from the work of both Law Commissions. On that occasion he was good enough to recognise the support of the Opposition in that endeavour.
The Second Reading of this Bill affords the opportunity to remark upon the unsung but highly important labours of both Law Commissions: the improvement of the statute book by repealing what is obsolete and unnecessary and reducing to a minimum the number of separate enactments.
I desire to put on record the appreciation of my party for all aspects of the work carried out with real effectiveness by both Law Commissions. Obsolete, obscure and needlessly complex legislation diminishes the quality of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. My party is committed to the reduction of the statute book, simplification of legislation and the use of plain English by the draftsman. On another occasion your Lordships may wish to discuss how that can best be achieved.
Meanwhile, on these Benches, we are content that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. I have already acknowledged the Opposition's support. I should like to say how much I appreciate that support from the noble Lord and many of his colleagues. It is an enterprise in which all are engaged with fervour. The Law Commissions are greatly encouraged by the way in which their work has been received in this House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is the first of two linked consolidation Bills on the Order Paper in my name. Perhaps the House will allow me to speak to them both together and then to move the second Bill formally.
The Merchant Shipping Bill consolidates some 30 Acts or sections of Acts dating back to the consolidating Act of 1894. The Shipping and Trading Interests

583
(Protection) Bill is a discrete topic derived from parts of two of them. The 1894 Act contained over 740 sections and 21 schedules. Many of its provisions have been repealed over recent years, and the details of many other provisions of the old Merchant Shipping Acts are now covered by regulations. The new Merchant Shipping Bill is about half the length of its predecessor, and will give effect to a welcome rationalisation of the present law. Therefore, we are moving in the direction to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred.
I take this opportunity of thanking the draftsman for continuing this important consolidation work. If your Lordships are content to give these Bills a Second Reading, they will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I welcome the two Bills which arise from the report of the joint working party, published some years ago. In a way it is rather sad that time was not found last year for the measures. It would have been the 100th anniversary of the 1894 Act.
Perhaps I may make one observation in qualifying my welcome; it is rather a sad observation. In 1894, our merchant fleet was the largest in the world and it remained so until about 25 years ago. It is sad to note today that it has shrunk to its present rather low rating.
It was a delight to meet the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aboard the very fine latest addition to our fleet, the "Oriana". Therefore, I believe that it is extremely appropriate that the noble and learned Lord should be moving today the Second Reading of the two Bills.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for those observations. Of course, I am sorry that the Bill was not brought forward 100 years after the last consolidation measure but I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that those are difficulties that one must face from time to time. I agree that we should be happier if our merchant navy today were bigger than it is. It is great in quality but we should all be happier to see it greater in numbers.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Jobseekers Bill
3.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: 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.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The jobseeker's allowance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of section 37(2)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184 which is consequential upon it. Before I do so, I wish to express my sympathy and to offer my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, whose husband has so sadly died during the Recess. It was my privilege to meet him only once and he was a man to whom I took an instant liking. I offer the noble Baroness my sympathy with all my heart. I hope to see her back in due course and I wish her the very best that I can.
Also, I wish to express my regret that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as I understand it through no fault of its own, has been unable to complete its study of the Bill in time for the Committee stage. As the Committee will know, that is normally the stage at which we take up the very valuable help which we receive from that committee. As it is, we shall not be able to have its full and detailed findings in a second report available to us until the Report stage. That means that we shall not be able finally to dispose in Committee of all the many issues arising from the delegated powers in the Bill. In that context, I must express my regret at the limited number of days available for the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I welcome the spirit and the letter of the report of the committee on the Sittings of the House. But we can only operate those recommendations when we have enough time to do so. I shall do my best; but I cannot promise success.
The effect of the above amendment is to postpone the commencement of the Bill until 1st April 1997. I believe that the Department of Social Security, left to itself, is one of the more competent departments in Whitehall. Nevertheless, over the past few years, it has experienced a series of what I believe we are not now supposed to describe as "cock-ups" and which, I may perhaps describe as "indiscreet elevations".
I shall not go into the severe hardship payments for 16 and 17 year-olds because we shall have time to discuss that issue later. However, there is the story of disability living allowance; there is the story of the Child Support Act; there is the story, about which we shall hear a great deal more, of incapacity benefit; and there is the story to which I shall return, after today's Question, of the habitual residence test. In those cases, I believe that it is more than a fiction to say that the Minister is responsible—this Chamber having what the

585
noble Lord, Lord Peston, once described as a sense in government circles that, "It will be all right on the night"; in other words, that it will be possible to press ahead and that, somehow, all the difficulties will mysteriously vanish when it comes to implementing the legislation. As a result—certainly to my knowledge from 1988 onwards—the Government have a record of attempting to implement their Bills a great deal too fast.
The latter is especially true in the case of what, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, admitted on Second Reading, is a framework Bill. That means that large parts of the Bill are, in effect, not yet ready to be put before us. I do not know how far they have been thought out or what wordings are available in draft for the numerous series of regulations that we can expect under the Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a response to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, requested at Second Reading. The noble Lord said that he hoped that it would be possible to allow Members of this Chamber to see those regulations in draft before they were officially presented. That would tend to save public contention. If the Minister does do so, it will of course take time; but, if he does not do so, it will take time in other ways.
Merely finding time in the business of the House to deal with the number of regulations that must be scrutinised before the Bill comes into effect will be very time consuming. In fact, the Government admit in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that they are not really sure yet how they will set about it. Part of the section headed Effect of the Bill on Public Service Manpower says:
"Since detailed decisions on the delivery of jobseeker's allowance have yet to be taken, it is not possible to quantify the overall effect at this stage".
In my view, a government who say that are not yet ready to bring their measure into effect. If we want to avoid another catastrophe when the legislation is put into effect, it would be well worth the Government's while to postpone what they do for a little while.
I believe that there is also a considerable problem about the effect of the Bill on public service manpower. I have given the Minister notice of a series of questions that I intend to ask about adjudication officers. As I understand it, it was the intention of the Bill to take work off adjudication officers by taking decisions at the front line in the hands of the employment officer. I do not think that it will work that way. When employment officers find people not to be eligible for benefit, I believe that there will be a flood of appeals going forward to adjudication officers.
Therefore, can the Minister tell me, first, how many adjudication officers are in post? Secondly, what is their average salary? Thirdly, who appoints them and what are their terms and conditions of service, especially their tenure? Fourthly, what at present is the average waiting time for appeals concerning unemployment benefit; and, fifthly, how many new adjudication officers are the Government planning to appoint to deal with the work arising from the Bill? That is a question upon which they ought to have thought before fixing a commencement date.
There is also the problem of merging two bureaucracies—employment and social security; in other words, the merging of two departmental cultures. If there is one thing that we all know about Whitehall it is that there is nothing harder than merging two departmental cultures. In fact, the cultures of employment and social security are extremely different. They remind me of Sir Alan Herbert's Epitaph on an Archbishop:
"My predecessors fighting sin, Did their best to bring men in, But I was best without a doubt, At keeping the unworthy out".
Getting those two attitudes to work together in employment offices will be a very stormy task and it will take time. There is also the problem of what I understand is now described in Parisian fashion as "co-location". As an academic, I know all about the difficulties of split-site mergers. Where we are getting the local merger of services, do we know yet to what extent they will be brought together in one lot of premises and to what extent they will be split between two different premises? Further, do we know how much progress will be made—and such progress will be vital to justify the principle of the Bill—towards one-stop shops where people can deal with the business of employment service, career service and benefit agency all in one? In rural areas in particular, where people on benefit probably have neither the money nor the opportunity to travel, that can be quite vital.
If the Minister can convince us that all those provisions are ready and in place to implement the Bill on 1st April 1996, well and good. But, if the Minister tells me that it will be, "All right on the night", I shall tell him that it was not so last time. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to express my support for the amendment. However, in doing so, I should like to say, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the amendment would have been supported from our Benches by my noble friend Lady Turner who, as the noble Earl explained, is sadly absent from the Chamber. I am sure that we are all grateful for the concerns that the noble Earl and other Members of the Chamber have expressed and we shall certainly relay them to my noble friend. It will mean, however, that many of us will be dealing with amendments which my noble friend would, I am sure, have dealt with even more persuasively and articulately than my friends and I could hope to do today.
The more I contemplate the noble Earl's amendment, the more it seems to me that it has all kinds of virtues. The noble Earl is calling for a year's delay in implementation. Obviously, this is not the time and place to make a Second Reading speech, but I should like to make two points. First, I should like to reinforce what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said about the regulation in the Bill. There are 116 regulations. I wish to quote from the interim report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which states at paragraph 9:

587
"It could nonetheless be argued that the Bill leaves so much power in the hands of Ministers and that these powers are so fundamental that the Bill is no more than a skeleton Bill of the kind against which the committee warned in its first report to the House".
The report then considers some of the individual regulations. It states, on Clause 4,
"The committee worries whether such a fundamental matter should be left undefined in this way even where there are precedents in social security legislation provisions to do so",
and so on.
We have here guidance from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, set up by this Chamber, to suggest that this is a framework Bill and we do not yet know how it will affect the many thousands of people we are considering today. We need to know more about what is intended and we need to have the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee to tell us how that should be regarded by us, but we do not have that here. That is one of my reasons. However, there is a second set of reasons I should like to spend a little more time on. This is a reason which might even commend itself to the Government: it is the savings that would result were this Bill to be delayed by a year.
The first reason—this is not my priority but I certainly suspect it would be the Minister's—would be the savings in cash. I understand the Government expect to save £140 million on this benefit in the first year and £270 million in a full year. We on this side of the Chamber do not accept those figures. We accept that there will be savings in this benefit because costs saved in this benefit will be exported to other benefits, in particular housing benefit and council tax benefit. Why is that? It is because the Government, despite the best efforts of those on the Opposition Benches at Second Reading to explain the disincentive effect of means testing on working families, still fail to understand the point that, if one moves onto means tested benefits after six months instead of 12 months and the working partner—it is usually the female—is in part-time work, she will come out of work rather than have her male partner's benefit deducted pound for pound for every pound she earns.
Therefore, the Government in this Bill have constructed a perverse system which ensures that, if one partner loses his job—let us say the husband—the second partner will also lose her job. Both then need to claim more benefit and for longer. This is not a figment of my imagination. I have had modelling done by reputable bodies which shows that if the male partner is on unemployment benefit and the female partner is in part-time work, they might on certain assumptions receive benefit of £100 a week. But if they both come out of work and they are both on benefit because of the effect of means testing we shall have to pay them £70 more in benefits; that is £170 to £180 a week rather than £100 that they will currently be receiving.
I predict—I believe this is well substantiated—that although the benefit we are discussing may be cut, total social security expenditure will rise because the costs will be displaced elsewhere. Only when the total job market is expanded as a result of investment and
588
training will there be real saving on social security budgets. Delay these benefit changes by a year, and save us all some money.
Secondly, an even more significant argument is that such a measure would save stress and distress for claimants. It would save the stress and distress that would visit those under 25 who, although they have paid their national insurance benefit, will now find government reneging on that contract and cutting their benefit by 20 per cent. It would save the stress and distress on those who do not quite shape up to the new harsh actively seeking work tests embodied in this Bill because, quite unreasonably, English is not their first language; or because, quite unreasonably, they have a learning difficulty; or because, quite unreasonably, they are partially disabled and do not qualify for incapacity benefit, on the one hand, and may fail to qualify for JSA, on the other; or, quite unreasonably, because although they had skimped in the past to build some modest savings, they now find those savings lost before they can enjoy any benefit. Would we not wish to avoid such social stress?
Thirdly, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are anxious to save the plummeting reputation of the Government in the field of social security. We are being altruistic. The Government were warned but ignored the fact that they would face major problems as regards the poll tax; and guess what the Government subsequently had to do about that? The Government were warned but ignored all of the amendments and issues raised by the Opposition as regards the Child Support Agency; and guess what the Government will now have to do about that? The Government have been warned but have ignored the major problems that are now apparently being thrown up by the new incapacity benefit; and the Government will quite rightly face a stormy year ahead on those issues. May we suggest to the Government that they might want to save themselves some stress and distress too because this Bill is rightly detested? It is seen as nasty, bullying, vindictive and mean. It is seen as all of that precisely because it is that.
There is one final saving. Depending on the fate and fortune of the Prime Minister, we will by April 1997 either have had or be within weeks of a general election. Why implement a Bill when the whole policy behind unemployment will change, so that instead we will be rebuilding our economy rather than merely punishing the unemployed who are losers as a result of the Government's economic policies? The £270 million that the Government expect to save in the first full year of this benefit would be financed by getting just 30,000 people back to work. That is what we will be doing, but we will be doing it more aptly without being encumbered by such a Bill as this. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is a very experienced and, if he will allow me to say so, very effective parliamentarian and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be ready to answer fully the points which he made, I thought with considerable fairness and certainly considerable authority. I rise only to support one thing

589
he said, and that is when he indicated that he thought it was unwise of the Government to try to restrict the Committee stage debates on this Bill to three days.
This Bill is a Bill of very great importance to a great many of our fellow countrymen. It is also, as even a perfunctory study of it makes only too clear, an extremely complicated measure in which it is always possible that government and even the best of Ministers may make mistakes, and it would be an advantage if this Chamber, with the great volume of expertise which it includes in its membership, were to be able to discuss it fully. Therefore, it seems to me that a three-day limit is a very great mistake and that it will involve rushing the Bill, or rushing at any rate this stage of the Bill, and also perhaps taking a good deal of it at an inconvenient hour of the night. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when perhaps he has contemplated what happens in today's debate, will reconsider the question of limiting the Committee stage to three days.
I appreciate fully, because I served as a Minister for a good many years, the compulsions—and the desirability obviously from a Government's point of view—to get their legislation in good time. But there is an answer to all that and that answer is to do what in any event we will do next week; and that is to sit on some Fridays. It would be perfectly possible to include at any rate another day of the Committee stage on a Friday since, as I understand it, only next Friday is at the moment hypothecated to a particular debate.
I know that the Government, with their very tender and proper concern for the convenience of Ministers, are not always keen to sit on Fridays. However, given the volume of business which your Lordships' House is being asked to consider, I believe that the answer is to take an additional Friday rather than curtail this Committee stage to three days. Four days, or perhaps even five days, might well be devoted profitably to this Bill.
I suggest to my noble friend that that is not only in the national interest but in the interests of the Government. I know from experience that this is the kind of Bill in which it is possible to make mistakes. It would be an advantage to the Government to have a full debate, with the possibility of revealing errors, difficulties of drafting and so on, which can only be brought out if there is full debate.
For that reason, and also because I happen to be a great believer in the review functions of your Lordships' House, I ask the Government to consider, when today's debate is over (I do not ask the Minister to reply to this point this afternoon), at least a further day and possibly two further days in Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may begin by expressing my total agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his sympathetic remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I hope that we see her back shortly.
590
I heard the words "I am going to resist making a Second Reading speech". I shall also use them but, unlike the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, I shall resist making another Second Reading speech. I shall address myself to the amendments in front of us. We shall come to the other matters in the course of today and the two days to come.
That allows me to address the point of whether we have three days, four days or even five days, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter invited me to contemplate. We have just had five days on the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill, which was a very much larger Bill than this and covered a wider field. Indeed, we debated that Bill first, before the other place. This Bill comes to us having been through the other place. It has been through its Committee and Report stages there. Taking into account the time allocated to the Pensions Bill and other Bills, I believe that three days is about right for this Bill. I hope that we can study all the various parts of the Bill during those three days.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for the noble Earl's main amendment, Amendment No. 184, which invites me and the Committee to postpone the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance until April 1997. Clause 37(2) of the Bill provides that the substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a date set by the Secretary of State. This gives the Secretary of State discretion to set the actual date of introduction as he judges appropriate. Subsection (3) of that clause allows for different dates to be set for the introduction of different aspects of the provisions.
Members of the Committee are aware that our intention has always been to introduce JSA in April 1996. That remains the case. The noble Earl clearly recognises that the introduction of JSA is a large and complex task. We also recognise that. He would prefer us, in recognition of that fact, to take an additional year to complete the task, with a greater degree of certainty of getting the implementation right first time. The noble Baroness, mindful of the Government's welfare, concurred with that argument. Tempting as it may be to succumb to those blandishments, I must invite the Committee not to accept the amendment in the noble Earl's name.
I give the Committee and the noble Earl this assurance. We are closely monitoring progress towards implementation. As was announced in another place, we have commissioned an external review of the work being carried out to implement JSA. That review will help us to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are put in place to introduce JSA in April 1996.
If we conclude, for whatever reason and at whatever date, that the arrangements being made for the introduction of JSA in April 1996 are such that there is an unacceptable risk that things might go wrong, then we shall certainly consider alternatives. One of the alternatives would be to delay the date of introduction. One of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service we offer to jobseekers. We certainly do not intend to put that at risk.
I am not sure whether I shall be in order if I try to answer some of the questions the noble Earl asked me about two aspects of the implementation of the Bill and

591
the jobseeker's allowance. On the question of premises, I can tell the noble Earl that the payment of JSA will, as far as possible, be made from Employment Service Jobcentres. We think that that is the right place to do it. In practice, how the staff are spread across the Employment Service and Benefits Agency offices will be managed pragmatically by each district, with a view to obtaining the best value for money for the state and providing the best service for the people who visit us. Planning guidance is currently with the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. Field organisations in various parts of the country are considering all these matters and related issues as to how we provide the "front of house" service for the claimant who comes looking for a job.
The noble Earl kindly gave me advance notice that he was going to ask these questions on adjudication officers. I shall answer his questions as quickly as possible and I hope that the Committee will bear with me. I was asked the questions and I ought to try to answer them.
There are approximately 650 specialist adjudication officers currently employed by the Employment Service to give decisions on doubtful claims for unemployment benefit and to process appeals against decisions. That figure excludes adjudication officers working in regional offices on advisory monitoring duties and officers with adjudication powers who award benefit in straightforward cases.
The Benefits Agency calculates the number of adjudication officers differently, as adjudication officers are mainly drawn from staff in LO1 and LO2 grades. They have many other duties in addition to adjudication. Therefore, it is not so easy to provide an accurate figure on how staff are deployed. However, we estimate that there are currently approximately 11,000 such staff, although I must emphasise that that is an estimate.
The noble Earl asked about the pay rates of the staff. The Benefits Agency has no set grade for adjudication officers. Generally, adjudication is undertaken by officers of two grades and those grades have average salaries of £15,848 for an LO1 and £11,852 for an LO2. In the Employment Service the post of specialist AO is graded as falling within the Employment Service management pay band 6. The salary range is £12,300 to £15,900. I am afraid that I do not have enough information on which to calculate the average rate of pay for adjudication officers.
The legal status of adjudication officers derives from a centralised instrument of appointment. The instrument makes a block appointment of those staff who are employed wholly or partly on social security adjudication. Individual adjudication officers do not receive a personalised letter of appointment. Officers in the Employment Service are appointed by an Assistant Secretary on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Security with the concurrence of the Chief Executive of the Employment Service on behalf of the Secretary of State for Employment. They are civil servants. They are recruited and promoted with regard to their capability to act as adjudication officers. Conditions of service in both services are the same as those for all permanent civil servants who work in either agency.
592
I was asked about average waiting time on appeals. Information is not available on individual reasons for appeals and could only be obtained at considerable cost. For appeals against all decisions on unemployment benefit in the quarter ending June 1994, which is the latest period for which we have figures, the average time from the lodging of the appeal to the date of hearing was 22.4 weeks. Employment Service adjudication officers process appeals and submit them to the Independent Tribunal Service in an average of 21 days from the date of receipt. Of course, many appeals are dealt with more quickly.
Lastly, I was asked whether we plan to appoint any more adjudication officers. Under JSA there will be more adjudication officers making labour market decisions, as front-line staff in the Employment Service will become involved in specific areas for the first time. There will be a reduction in the adjudication work that is currently carried out at ES sector adjudication offices as responsibility for payment adjudication will transfer to the BA. The organisations will consider the number of staff employed on adjudication during the course of working out how they are to deliver the service.
I have answered as briefly as I can the questions sent to me by the noble Earl. I come back to the substantive point that I wish to make in relation to the amendments before us. If for any reason we conclude that the arrangements for introduction pose an unacceptable risk we will certainly take the steps available to us to delay the date of introduction. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Earl will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Earl decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps we may make clear our view on Committee days. Obviously, the three Committee days were arranged through the usual channels, and therefore it is inappropriate for me to demur. However, given the comment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that it will not be able to report on the Bill until after Committee stage, I wonder whether there is a case for asking the Minister to consider with his colleagues, through the usual channels, that there should be a day and a half rather than one day at Report stage. That will allow us to take the Report stage rather more thoroughly than may otherwise be the case, in particular to take on board at that stage the issues raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that we have not been able to do this time around. After all, if we are to have three Committee days it is not unusual to ask for a day and a half rather than one day for Report. That may meet the well-founded criticisms of both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Rochester: Perhaps I may ask the Minister what provision is to be made for the training of the additional adjudication officers to whom he referred.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to say a word in support of the speeches from the two Opposition Benches, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I make a plea for extra time for consideration of the Bill. I do not believe that this Bill can be compared with the Pensions Bill. This Bill is

593
only a skeleton, whereas the Pensions Bill was fat and already fleshed out to a large extent. In addition to the suggestions already made, I ask that somehow time should be provided in Committee, on re-commitment if necessary, to consider the second report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. After all, that committee has said quite clearly that, wherever it can, it issues its report so that it can be discussed in Committee with all the freedom of debate which that stage of the Bill allows.
We will not have the substantive report of that committee until after the end of Committee stage. If we are to have that freedom of discussion I believe that before Report stage, or some time thereabouts, we should be allowed to discuss the substantive report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in Committee on re-commitment. I should like the noble Lord to consider that suggestion sympathetically.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to press the Minister on one other point that arises from the report of the scrutiny committee. In that committee the memorandum from the two departments pointed out that most of the resolutions likely to be considered regarding regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure until the date that the JSA itself came into effect. Thereafter, they would be subject to the annulment procedure.
As noble Lords will know, in terms of effect the annulment procedure is much more difficult. One is asking the Government to reconsider regulations. Because this is in many ways a framework Bill, not a detailed one, a great deal of its effect will depend on the nature of the regulations. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that the substantive regulations will, as far as possible, be brought forward before the date on which the JSA is brought in and that, if that cannot be done, he will reconsider his advice to the Committee not to press the amendment at the present time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that that is the very point. Put another way, the important first time around is by affirmative order. Obviously, the system cannot be up and running without all of the regulations having been passed. Therefore, the first time they appear the affirmative order will apply. There is precedent for that procedure. The first time the regulations come before the House and into public view is by far the most important time.
I am not too sure how many happy hours the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, spent on the Pensions Bill. That was an extraordinarily important, long and complex Bill. It covered a very wide field. This Bill covers a very much narrower field. The length of time that one spends on a Bill is dependent entirely upon how much time one spends on some of the preliminaries. We have already spent quite a bit of time today on the preliminaries. I do not wish to take up any more time. Let us get on with the detail. I will certainly draw to the attention of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal the points that have been made about the time
594
allocated to Report. But my view on that is the same. When viewed against the days devoted to the Pensions Bill, I believe that the present allocation is generous.
As far as training adjudication officers and other staff is concerned, I say to the noble Lord that the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service have a pretty well developed system. There are very considerable training facilities in the agencies, as indeed in the Civil Service, for anyone who is appointed an adjudication officer, or in any other capacity, or promoted to a new job.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I agree with almost every word he said. The more that we can approach this matter in a non-party spirit the more we will advance. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The distinction that he makes between this Bill and the Pensions Bill is a perfectly sound one. It is of the essence of a framework Bill that a lot of it is not there and one has to tease it out. I do not believe that the Minister was here when we dealt with the Education (Student Loans) Bill. That was in effect a three-page Bill. I believe it had one line on a fourth page. However, it produced two very long days in Committee. The less you put into a Bill the more time it takes in Committee.
I was disappointed that the Minister was not in a position to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, at Second Reading about consultation over an advanced draft text of the regulations. That might reduce the time it takes to bring the Bill into effect. In general, the Minister did not seem particularly ready to accept olive branches. I know that the Minister has discretion, but I have yet to be convinced that there is any likelihood of his using it. I also know that the Minister and the department will monitor carefully. I heard that said in relation to the Child Support Act, 16 and 17 year-olds and the disability living allowance. However, it is very rare indeed for anything to change because the department has monitored something. I was interested in the choice of the words "on premises". It was said that it would be managed pragmatically. That is a wonderful example of Whitehall-speak for "I do not know". I think that at this stage of the Bill they ought to know.
I am grateful to the Minister for the information he gave about adjudication officers. It confirms my sense that adjudication officers will be under more pressure than they are able to cope with. A period of 22.4 weeks when, in the meantime, one may be totally without benefit is an inhumanly long time. I think we should expect that to increase; it may even double or treble with the flood of appeals that will arise under the Bill. That confirms my sense that the department is not ready for the storm that is coming its way and that it needs more time to think about it. I seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kennet, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Methuen, L.

Chapple, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rix, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Freyberg, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cockfield, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Coleridge, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Aldington, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cox, B.

Astor, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boardman, L.

Davidson, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

De Freyne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Burnham, L.

Downshire, M.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gage, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Gainford, L.

Chesham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Gisborough, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Goschen, V.

596

Hailsham of Saint

Norrie, L.

Marylebone, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hogg, B.

Pender, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone L.

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Prior, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Killearn, L.

Quinton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rawlings, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Rennell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Romney, E.

St Davids V.

Liverpool, E.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Sharples, B.

Lyell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyne, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Wise, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("for") insert ("and is seeking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which is directly related to Amendment No.4, I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 51, 59 and 65. Like many other amendments on the Marshalled List, these derive from the work of my noble friend Lady Turner. I echo all the remarks that have been made about the work that she has done. We are very sorry that she is not with us this afternoon.
The central aim of the amendments—it was an idea very close to my noble friend's heart—in effect is to take out of the Bill the word "actively" in the phrase "actively seeking work", and indeed take it out of employment practice. As she said, you cannot inactively seek work. If you seek work, you are seeking work actively. In principle, we do not need the word "actively".
Much more importantly, in the Employment Service, in practice since its entry the actively seeking work test has become synonymous with the transformation of the service.
It is the most notorious change in the administration of the employment benefit service over the past 15 or 16 years—not merely the phrase, but the way it has been

597
interpreted. Therefore the object of these amendments is to insert into line 12 of the Bill on page 1 the words "and is seeking". The Bill would therefore read as follows:
"is available and is seeking employment;".
To reassure those who think this might mean that as a result of this amendment everybody would get employment benefit without any tests, I must remind your Lordships of what would remain in Clause 1 of this Bill. The object of Clause 1 is to reserve the Government's position so that anyone who is seeking the jobseeker's allowance can be denied that allowance on 10 related grounds. That is what this clause says. It is a bit like the National Lottery. You have to get through 10 of the right holes; you must have 10 of the right numbers to get any money. You have to be sufficiently available for work to satisfy the officers of the employment service, and you have to agree to sign the jobseeker's agreement. They have to agree to let you sign it, because if they disagree with the conditions that are in it they may not let you sign the agreement, in which case you are stopped. You have to be available for work and active for work. You have to have paid enough contributions or you will not get any money. You must not have too much capital or any income or else you will not get any money. You must not be engaged in remunerative work. You must not be incapable of any work. I admit, to be fair to the Government, that is very difficult to operate. It is very difficult to be incapable of any work these days: almost anybody who stands up or leans to is capable of work. But there it is: it is in the Bill. You cannot be receiving any education; you cannot have a pension; and you must not have left the country. You have actually to be here.
If you get through all these holes with all these qualifications, you can get a jobseeker's allowance. The point I want to make is that we are not seeking to knock down all these barriers. There are still seven barriers to getting money. You have still to get through seven of the gateways. We are just trying to affect the "actively seeking work" test. That is all this amendment means. It affects at the most two or three of the barriers.
What is the case against deleting, or redefining—because some of our subsequent amendments seek to define "actively" if we cannot get the Government to take it out—the "actively seeking work" test? It is partly an argument from history and partly an argument from contemporary practice. In October 1989 the Government decided to modify the availability for work test. It changed the adjudication officer's guide, which said that in future applicants for unemployment benefit were required to take active steps.
All the evidence is that from that moment the number of disallowances significantly rose. In 1992—and, in my opinion, more significantly still—the rules were changed. The employment officers no longer wrote warning letters if they felt that an applicant was getting close to being in breach of the "actively seeking work" test. Now there are no warning letters: we have a later amendment about this. An applicant will simply get taken off employment benefit.
This is perhaps the most important thing of all: in 1994 the employment staff who administer this test, who you would have thought were supposed to be the most objective of people involved, were placed on performance-related pay. Many of you will know already how strongly the Government resent any indication that they might be placed on performance-related pay themselves, but it is perfectly appropriate for every body el se. It is perfectly appropriate for members of the employment staff, who now have a vested interest because they get bonus points for getting people disallowed in respect of benefit. If performance-related pay goes far and fast enough, Her Majesty's judges will get performance-related pay for convictions and for sentences. We have not got that far yet.
However, this was a quasi-judicial function, I would submit; and I would also submit that the effective operation of the service depended upon applicants believing that they were getting some kind of judicial assessment by an independent person who, if he was not on their side, at least was not against them. Nevertheless, we now know that within the year there were three times as many disqualifications as there were before, and the number of references to adjudication officers rose. That is the history of what has happened through the manipulation of the activity test in the administration of the employment service.
Those of you who have been interested in this Bill will know that we have been inundated with evidence and testimony from all kinds of interested parties, and in particular from the citizen's advice bureaux giving concrete examples of people who have come to them saying—and this is under the present system—they must attend three times a week; they must get a list of jobs; they must produce a diary which shows that they have been to see a series of employers, who have signed in the diary to say that these people have turned up. You will know of the complaints from employers who say that they have received all kinds of useless applications. You will know the demotivating consequences that have come to the notice of officers in the citizens' advice bureaux of people going after ludicrous jobs for which they have no qualifications. You will know of the rising tide of despair and of poverty for people who suddenly find that the Giro has not come this week and that they have been declared not eligible for unemployment benefit.
We do not say that by passing this amendment this will be cured. There are lots of other amendments referring to other parts of this Bill that would do that; but we say that this use of the "actively seeking work" test is the most simple, straightforward and significant sign of what is wrong with the employment service. We ask your Lordships to take it from the Bill. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am not in the habit of quoting my own speeches, but in case the Minister should be tempted to say that I have changed my mind, I thought I might

599
quote what I said on the 1st December 1992 when we were debating the latest "actively seeking work" regulations. What I said was this:
"We on these Benches support the requirement that people should actively seek work. We do not regard it as acceptable that people should simply take benefit and do nothing. But that is not the only factor we regard as right. We also believe it is right that people should not die of starvation and that the use of starvation as an instrument of policy is unacceptable."—[Official Report, 1/12/92; col. 1311.]
You may remember in the Bill of Rights that the dispensing power was abolished as it has been exercised of late. We think that people should seek work, but we oppose the "actively seeking work" requirement as it has been exercised of late. We agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said about the withdrawal of the warning letter. We agree very strongly indeed about the withdrawal of hardship pay. That is in fact our biggest single grievance.
We also agree that it is not right that people should be sent chasing round to all sorts of jobs for which they are obviously unsuitable. In fact on 1st December 1992, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said she believed that this was leading some employers not to use the Jobcentres. That is extremely unfortunate for all of us. We on these Benches also agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:
"We understand that it is not possible to draw up regulations in such a way as to identify precisely those people who clearly have no intention of actively seeking work and who seek to maintain an alternative lifestyle supported by state benefits."
Ever since 1986 that has been a legislative Holy Grail which the Government have been pursuing. I do not believe that they will ever find it by a legislative route. Legislation cannot foresee all cases; it cannot be defined precisely enough.
The "actively seeking work" regulations, as used at present, are creating a great deal of hardship to no practical effect, especially of late—I use those words literally—as they have been exercised since April 1994. In the period from April to December 1994, 14,472 people were disentitled to benefit compared with 4,247 in the equivalent period the year before. Does the Minister have any information of what happened to those people afterwards? That is not an idle question. One cannot judge the effectiveness of a policy without knowing what its effect actually is That is something on which the Government must undertake research and that research should be debated by us all.
I want also to support Amendment No. 41. It takes a much more sensible approach to the problems of drafting which arise in this case. It proposes to insert,
"in order to qualify for payment of a jobseeker's allowance under sections 2 and 3 of this Act, a claimant must be available for and seeking work".
It leaves out the rather frenetic quality of "actively" which is not always easy when there is no work to seek. But it lays down in general terms the principle that people should be available for work and that they should seek it. It leaves the interpretation of that to be settled by the courts in relation to the individual claimant on the circumstances of the individual case.
600
I happened to be in the Chamber on 7th March last when the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was answering a Question on the use of mobile phones while driving. He was being pressed to make that a specific offence. The noble Viscount, in my opinion very wisely, was resisting the use of the specific offence on the ground that the law could not foresee all contingencies. For example, the late Mr. Robert Maxwell was once convicted of driving without due care and attention for using a battery razor while driving. The law cannot foresee all the various instruments that a person may use when driving. It must stick to the general principle and apply it in relation to the circumstances of the case. I was reminded of an academic colleague's explanation of why there were so many capital statutes during the 18th century. He said that the MP who demands the death penalty for stealing his turnips, never stops to think that the catastrophe which happened this year to his turnips may happen next year to his potatoes.
The problem with the Bill, and with a lot of the drafting which has been coming out of the Department of Social Security in recent years, is the attempt to specify everything in too great detail; the attempt to foresee all the contingencies. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, taught me, when replying to amendments that I moved, that the more detail one specifies in the Bill, the more often one needs to try and change it. That is why the Department of Social Security has moved into this rather frenetic pursuit of flexibility. It is an exercise in perpetual contortionism. It would have done much better to have studied the report of the Renton Committee on the drafting of legislation which I was studying at two o'clock in the morning and which I found to be extremely interesting. That committee—I quote it with trepidation in the presence of no less than two of its members—said in paragraph 10.11:
"too much weight should not be given to possible uncertainty about the application of general principles to particular factual situations: even where legislation is framed so as to deal with specific instances, as it generally is in this country at present, some situations are almost sure to be overlooked, thus leaving an area of uncertainty",
and that has to go to the courts. The committee went on to say,
"The adoption of the 'general principle' I approach in the drafting of our statutes would lead to greater simplicity and clarity. We would, therefore, like to see it adopted wherever possible. We accept, however, that this approach to a large extent sacrifices immediate—though not eventual—certainty and places upon the courts a heavier responsibility in identifying the intention of the legislature when applying legislation to particular circumstances".
It would be interesting to study the drafting policies of the Department of Social Security in the light of its relations with the courts over the past 20 years. I was looking last night at a work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, English Law: The New Dimension, published in 1974. The noble and learned Lord thought then that the courts were hesitant in venturing in detail into the area of social security. He even quoted Professor Richard Titmuss as saying that in social security the law had practically nothing to offer, which is a view that practically nobody would advance now. Since then we have had a much more activist approach by courts to social security. I refer to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 1990 in the

601
social fund case. And if I may be forgiven for mentioning a sub judice case only so far as to say that it is interesting, I can refer to the case of Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer in the Court of Appeal on 30th November last. That represents a case where the department thought that the courts had not expressed their true intention. The Renton Committee had something interesting to say about that approach also. Quoting the comments of the judge it said,
"These comments are the result of endeavours on the part of the legislature to ensure against the possibility that the legislation will be construed by someone, in some remote circumstances, so as to have a different effect from that envisaged by those preparing the Bill in question. As one Parliamentary draftsman has put it: 'The object is to secure that in the ultimate resort the judge is driven to adopt the meaning which the draftsman wants him to adopt, If in so doing he can use plain language, so much the better. But this is often easier said than done'".
The committee slightly understated its case; I do not think it can be done at all. It is because the Department of Social Security has been so determined to try to bind the judge to adopt the meaning of the draftsman that we have this frenetic pursuit of detail which has led to this enormous growth in the use of regulations and therefore to problems about how this House may give its consent. Some conversation between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be extremely helpful in avoiding future problems. Meanwhile, I make these points because this amendment is drafted in the way social security legislation should be drafted, and I am pleased to support it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand this group of amendments, the essential point is the desire to take out of the Bill the provision that someone who is to obtain this allowance must be "actively" seeking employment and leaving it, presumably, on the basis that all they have to establish is that they were seeking employment.
I suggest that that would be an unfortunate amendment to the Bill. Whether or not one is really seeking employment—not actively seeking, but just seeking—may be a matter of opinion. If one sent a letter saying, "By the way, if you want to employ me I am available", is that seeking employment? The essence of the Bill as it stands is that one must be actively seeking employment. To carry an amendment to that effect will be extremely damaging both to the operation of the Bill and to the understanding of it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: When the Minister replies to this debate, will he answer one or two fairly straightforward questions for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who may not know the answers? My noble friend Lord McCarthy referred to performance related pay for the staff who are to implement these proposals. Can the Minister tell us what is the measurement of performance? Is it the number of applicants or the money saved? Are targets set for them? How substantial are the rewards if the targets are achieved? Conversely, are there penalties for failure to reach the targets? I believe that in this and in subsequent debates on this Bill
602
it is very important that we should know the answers to these questions because the attitude of the staff in implementing all these proposals will be very important indeed. We need to know how they are driven.
Lord Renton: I agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the true effect of these amendments, especially Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. They are of very limited scope and, as my noble friend quite rightly said, they simply raise the question of whether it is enough that there should be the seeking of employment, which is a pretty vague expression, or whether mere should be the need for the active seeking of employment.
Having said that, perhaps I may now refer to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the recommendations in the report of the committee on the preparation of legislation, of which I had the honour to be chairman. I was glad that he made those quotations. I broadly agree with him that we should avoid detail if it is intended merely to cover a number of anticipated hypothetical circumstances. If we try to include too much detail we will generally fail: we are pretty certain to leave something out. I agree with the noble Earl that whether we have a need for detail or not, it is as well that the intention of Parliament should be made clear by the statement of principles.
I do not have a copy of our report with me, but my recollection is—in due course I can show the report to the noble Earl—that when we have legislation that financially affects the individual citizen's rights, as in a finance Bill, and as we have here in the entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance, we have to spell out exactly what the entitlement is. That is what Clause 1 and others in the Bill attempt to do.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, as I always am when he refers to that report. However, I do not believe that governments—dare I say it: civil servants who instruct parliamentary draftsmen—have really taken advantage of the opportunities which that report presents through its recommendations. In the particular group of amendments to which reference has been made, I do not believe that the Government can be accused of doing something that the report felt should not be done. Although I of course welcome any broad statement of principle to implement what is in the Bill, I go along with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that as regards the particular points raised by these amendments the Government can well stand firm.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may very briefly respond to some very generous remarks. I am not arguing with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the Bill. However, this Bill is giving a power to produce many further detailed definitions of "actively seeking work" in regulations. It was that attempt at a more detailed definition which I was describing as "frenetic".
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may say a little in support of these amendments. Quite rightly, they correct the Bill, which is based on a fallacy. That fallacy is that we have unemployment because the unemployed are not actively seeking work. That is not the case. We have unemployment because there are no jobs for the

603
unemployed to have. It is very peculiar that it is not enough to be seeking work but that one should be actively seeking work.
How does one define "actively"? If I sit here and listen to noble Lords, am I being very active? If I had to go to an office and prove that I am being active while I am sitting listening, people may not agree. I may be very actively seeking work sitting here and making many applications for work, but that may not satisfy someone sitting in a jobseeker's allowance office.
We shall get into more and more detailed regulations. The point is that, no matter how actively one asks a person to seek work, he or she is not going to find it if there is no work to be had. Therefore, rather than worry about the idea that somehow it is a lack of effort on the part of the unemployed which is the cause of this problem, one should be tackling the cause of unemployment in some other way.
This clause is not about the fact that people will get more jobs if they actively seek work, but, as many Members of the Committee have said, it is really about saving money. We are cutting people off for not seeming enthusiastic enough in finding work. That requirement will be screwed up tighter and tighter because there will be foolish attempts to save money and at the same time there will be clamorous demands for cutting taxes or something like that. It will not save very much money, as my noble friend pointed out, because the money saved on this particular benefit will have to be paid out elsewhere. This provision will not create any more jobs than there are already but an even bigger bureaucracy than we already have in this field, and that is bad enough.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very happy to be speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as he may well remember that a few years ago in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was speaking for the Government on social security matters, he said of him and me that we were the only two Peers in the House apparently who were against the term "actively seeking work". He paused in case anyone wished to join us in our lonely position. He then went on to further business. Therefore, it is altogether appropriate that I follow the noble Lord.
The citizens advice bureaux, which are highly respected in this House, are very unhappy about the phrase "actively seeking work" and the way in which since, I believe, 1989 it has been turned again and again. That was a metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It has been, and continues to be, the turn of the screw. It is a tightening up all the time through regulations of one sort or another which are particularly intrusive into people's private lives. Therefore, for that reason alone, the measure should be resisted.
I am very unhappy with the evidence which the citizens' advice bureaux have accrued on this subject which proves indisputably that we should not persist in the turn of this screw. If only the Government would agree to respect human beings who are unemployed and who will, indeed, seek work conscientiously. The Government should not presume that they will not do so if that screw is not turned.
604
In my brief Second Reading speech, I said that I was increasingly worried about the policing of society. One of the things that I find most disgusting is the way in which the unemployed are increasingly being policed more and more repressively.
The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux states that the actively seeking work formula has been used in,
"an increasingly authoritarian regime at the jobcentre which has little to do with helping unemployed people find work".
I agree with that. However, in the form that it will take if the Bill is enacted, the actively seeking work formula means that the burden of proof on the claimant is heavily augmented. It has to be realised that the test whereby a claimant has to prove that he has been seeking work actively applies more than once. It has to be proved every week, so I am told. What a burden that is on a person who may have to seek work for miles around and who will have very little money with which to pay fares to and from the places where he is seeking work. What an intolerable burden it places on employers also. Surely the Government Benches might be sympathetic to the point of view that I am now putting forward because employers already find it extremely onerous to have to stamp chits to say that an unemployed person has been seeking work there when those employers know perfectly well that they do not have any places available. Apparently, they have to go through that rigmarole every week for every unemployed person who actively seeks work from them. For those reasons, I support the amendment and hope that it will be put to a Division.
Finally, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is very experienced, is certain that the Jobseekers Bill, with this provision included, will further increase the surveillance —or what I call the "policing"—of all unemployed people and will inevitably lead to a further rise in the number of people who fall foul of the actively seeking work test. Do we really want that to happen? I suggest that we do not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am pleased to follow the weighty words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the issue of how we treat unemployed people and what assumptions we make about them. Almost everything turns on the way in which the concept of actively seeking work is to be interpreted and on the independence and fairness of that judgment. That leads me to ask the Minister three questions.
The first concerns the reference made in the memorandum to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred which states that the definition of "actively seeking work" will be that work must be actively sought in every single week. No reference is made to the possibility of illness or to other responsibilities that fall upon individuals even when they are unemployed. It is also stated that "actively seeking work" must mean availability,
"for a minimum of 40 hours a week".
Nothing is said about a possible maximum. Therefore, everything will turn on whether an individual is judged fairly on the question of whether he or she is actively

605
seeking work. The first question then is: what other conditions are to be attached to the definition of that crucial phrase? A great deal will turn on how the phrase is interpreted.
The second question is: who will adjudicate in an appeal? In an earlier reply to my noble friend Lord Russell, the Minister said that there would be additional adjudication officers. However, when one reads the memorandum from the two departments, it is clear that greater reliance is to be placed on what are called "front-line employment officers" when making those decisions. It is also stated that training in adjudication will not be required for those front-line employment officers, although some will make crucial decisions. I am sure that noble Lords will take on board the point that I am trying to make as best I can—that the adjudication officer's independence is crucial and that we need an absolute assurance that his or her pay and the judgment made about his or her work will be independent of the decisions made.
My third point about the actively seeking work test also relates to the later amendments concerning the jobseeker's agreement. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I refer to the question of whether or how the claimants will survive during what is today an average period of 20 weeks before an appeal is heard. One of the things of which we are most proud in this country is that people are held to be innocent until proven guilty, but in this Bill we shall be condemning people to 20 weeks without benefit until such time as the final adjudication is made. My noble friend Lord Russell asked the germane question: on what are they supposed to live during that time?
I conclude my brief intervention on this amendment by saying that as a Member of your Lordships' House who spends half her life working in the United States, I have seen the devastating consequences that occur when people who are unemployed because they cannot find jobs (because their education, training and circumstances do not fit them for those jobs that are available) are refused all forms of assistance and help by society. Some of those people turn extremely sour. We are concerned in this country about maintaining law and order. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider long and hard whether, if we make benefits impossible to obtain for genuinely unemployed people who want to be employed, we are not driving those people in a direction which all of us will come to regret.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should start by saying that people who claim the jobseeker's allowance will be doing so because they want to get back to work. We should hold that in our minds not only for the rest of this debate, but for the rest of this Committee stage.
The effects of the amendments would be to undermine the importance of a jobseeker's effort to find work. That point was underlined by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. Indeed, these are negative amendments which would not be in keeping with the principles that we are trying to establish in the
606
jobseeker's allowance, which is an attempt to help more people back into jobs. It is a current condition of entitlement to benefit for unemployed people that the claimant should seek employment actively. That is an important principle and we intend to carry it forward into JSA. It is essential that jobseekers should maintain regular contact with the labour market, and the actively seeking employment test helps to secure that link.
In Clause 6 we seek to define what the term "actively seeking employment" means. Clause 6(1) provides a definition of that term, while subsection (3) (a) details our intentions for the regulations to be drawn up under Clause 6. Those regulations will outline the steps that will be regarded as "actively seeking employment" steps. At present the list focuses on steps which amount to an actual job search. We shall be extending that list to include steps which improve a jobseeker's employability, such as drawing up a CV or obtaining references.
Some of the points that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, relate to Clause 6 and will be dealt with in some detail when we come to the amendments to that clause. So perhaps I can invite her to contain herself until we reach some of those details, when we will go over them.
The general point—I am not sure that I want to get into an academic discussion about the form of legislation—raised as usual with great interest by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was about how we frame legislation—whether we try to cover all eventualities or put out a few broad principles and leave it at that. The simple fact is—we will see it as the Bill progresses—that opposition parties will always try to argue from the particular to the general. They will always pick a case and say, "There is a case. You should be making sure, oh Government, that your secondary legislation or your primary legislation takes it into account". To think that we can just have nice broad principles, and hope they will be enacted in the way that we think, is not the way the world now works. Perhaps it would be less complicated if that were the way the world worked, but having been at the receiving end of piles of examples: why is this person not receiving benefit? Why is that happening? Why is the next thing happening? In other words, trying to argue from the particular to the general, and I do not see any great prospect of us managing to devise legislation, unless we change many other things and the way our country looks at such things, including, I suspect, going to court—
Lord McCarthy: I do not follow the Minister. Is he saying that because, when we give him particular examples of the whole thing breaking down, he cannot find any general answers, he is not going to give us any answers? Why cannot he tell us why the system broke down in that case?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is making my point. He is reinforcing the fact that those are the kinds of questions that he wants to ask me, and he wants me to reply in detail. That is what governments

607
try to do via secondary legislation which is detailed and tries to ensure that the lines we draw catch the various parts of the human condition.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is therefore confirming our worst fears. What he is offering us is ideology unaffected by information, fact or experience.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am obviously not explaining my position correctly. I am trying to counter the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should have legislation that embodies the broad principle and leave the detail to be dealt with by someone else. I am merely saying that I am usually attacked because the detail does not do all the things that the Committee would like it to do. Noble Lords want more detail, or they want the detail to shift an inch this way or that way. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, looking at me, so perhaps I should remember that now it is a centimetre this way or a centimetre that way.
While it may be an interesting common room discussion, the reality is that modern legislation has to try to be complicated.
Earl Russell: If I might, I should like to concede that I recognise that the Minister is making a serious point. If he would like me to meet him halfway, and outside the Chamber, I should be happy to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl has indicated neither the time nor the weapons. Perhaps I may return to the amendments. As I have said clearly, we believe that the principles currently in legislation of actively seeking work should be carried into the new legislation. The amendments would remove the word "actively" from the phrase "actively seeking employment" as it occurs at various places in the Bill.
It is clear that we wish people claiming JSA to be active in their job search. Present legislation uses the phrase, "actively seeking employment". If we dropped the word "actively" in moving to JSA, jobseekers, the Employment Service, the public, and, perhaps, ultimately the courts, could all be forgiven for supposing that we meant to signal by that some dilution of the condition; some lessening of the need for the jobseeker to go out to look for work, to try to take steps that would find him work. In practice, the amendments would mean a watering down of the principle that jobseekers should make every effort to get back to work.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who suggested that the real problem was that there were no jobs. Each year about 6 million jobs become vacant in this country. On any day, there are about 300,000 vacancies. About one-quarter of people who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month; about half leave within three months; about two-thirds leave within six months. Since the end of 1992, unemployment in this country has fallen by over 600,000. While of course I appreciate that, especially in certain areas, there are difficulties, there are still a lot of jobs available month after month, and it is right that in return for the JSA the jobseeker should be encouraged actively to seek work. That is what we wish to see in the Bill, and that is what I am invited to remove from
608
the Bill thus making it rather more passive, so that the signal given by this place to the outside world might be "it doesn't really much matter whether you look for work or not". We cannot do that.
I know that many Members of the Committee opposite do not occupy the real world, but in the real world that I occupy, and the real world that most people to whom I have talked occupy I am afraid that there are people who have no intention of working very hard to find a job. Indeed, I can think of a few families who have made it their life's work to act like that, and it is very, very annoying for their friends and neighbours who go out to work and who work jolly hard. We should not live in a totally rose-tinted world where some pressure is not needed on some people to ensure that they actively look for work.
The figures I gave in response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated that many people find work month after month. Many people are on the register for only a month or two and back to work they go.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am sorry to press the Minister on the issue of the real world, but just as the real world contains some people who are not seriously seeking jobs—of course we know that what he says is true of a minority—he recognises that in the real world there are officials and, for that matter politicians, who can allow their personal biases to get the better of them. I shall not pursue the issue of adjudications with regard to appeals and the way adjudication officers are rewarded if the Minister will be kind enough to tell me that he will allow me to raise those issues again when we reach Clause 6, because they seem also to be of the essence of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In fact what I invited the noble Baroness to be patient about was the first series of items she mentioned which pertained in particular to Clause 6. I shall turn to some of the specific points raised by her and others in the course of the discussion about other matters which do not arise later in the Bill.
I was asked about the independence of adjudication officers. They are independent. They take their advice about their performance from the statutory, independent Chief Adjudication Officer. There is no link between the performance targets of the Employment Service and the adjudication officers' decisions.
Public sector pay—the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I have jousted about that on a number of occasions at the Dispatch Box—is related to the person's contribution to the organisation's performance. The Employment Service's annual performance objectives are translated into local office standards. Those are reflected in the individual's work-related objectives. In the case of an employment officer, they will include, for example, placings into work and the accuracy and speed of benefit payments. There is not, and will not be, any correlation between conditions of benefit for a jobseeker and an employment officer's pay.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may press the Minister on that point. Are we wrong therefore in believing that in April 1994 the target for disqualifying

609
people from benefit was doubled to 150,000 per year? Does not a target exist for disqualifying people from benefit, which has been doubled in 12 months?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have said what I have said. I shall check that, and we shall no doubt be able to return to the point later. I shall answer the noble Baroness when I have the detail of the accusations she has just made.
On the training of employment advisers, staff act as adjudication officers, and those who act as adjudication officers will be trained. Employment officers, as I think I said in the previous debate, have their own training programmes. I have been to some. They are thorough and impressive. It is currently planned that about 15 days' training will be given to fully experienced staff. I hope that assures Members of the Committee that we are at one in wanting to ensure that the staff who run the new system are properly trained and have the kind of training, skills and knowledge that will enable them to do the job properly and fairly. There is nothing between us in the need to do the job fairly.
The Employment Service, in its annual performance agreement for 1995–96 with the Secretary of State, has a target of 185,000 submissions to adjudication, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred,
"where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work".
I emphasise that there must be an arguable case with supporting information. The target is not, as has been mischievously suggested, a target for disallowance. It is designed to ensure that the cases of people who do not appear to be entitled to benefit are referred in good order to adjudication. I believe that to be a sensible way to proceed. There are targets in respect of many other aspects of the system—
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister would not deny that the figures show that the number of disputed cases which go to adjudicating officers is rising significantly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has doubled.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must check before using the phrase "rising significantly". I shall return to that matter, given the figures as they stand. They may well have risen; but frankly, I do not suppose that anyone would complain if officials were ensuring that the system was running properly and fairly. It must be run fairly for the individual—and that is important—but it must be run fairly for the taxpayers who, at the end of the day, foot the Bill for the whole benefit system—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I push this important point once more.
The Minister appears to have failed to understand that the Employment Service has been given a target which was doubled between 1993–94 and 1994–95. That has been significantly increased again to a figure of 185,000. It is a target for referring cases to adjudication in the
610
expectation that such claimants will be denied benefit. In other words, the employment officials are being encouraged, pressed and targeted to dispute claims and therefore to deny people benefit. That target has been doubled as an act of policy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, they are being asked to put to adjudication any case where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, or actively seeking or willing to accept, work. I am amazed that the Opposition believe that trying to do that is wrong and iniquitous.
Perhaps I may return to the numbers in order to ensure that the noble Baroness does not repeat them. The year 1994–95 was the first that an adjudication submissions target was set and it was set at 135,000. It has been set at 185,000 for 1995–96. That is not doubling; it may be an increase but it is not doubling. I hope that answers the question which the noble Baroness asked—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: What is the point in having a target? Surely the courts and the adjudication system exists to decide what is right and wrong in various cases. If one starts setting targets and choosing numbers, one immediately puts forward a presumption of what will be found, which is against abstract justice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I regret to disagree with the noble Lord. Targets in the various agencies of government, in the social security service, have an important part to play. We are discussing one particular target but there are others relating to the speed with which cases are dealt. I am sure that the noble Lord will not dispute the fact that it is good to try to have targets that officials meet as regards the time they take to deal with cases. I am glad that he indicates, "Certainly not". It is important that we lay down targets to ensure that the system works fairly and effectively—
Earl Russell: I understand the Minister's point that this is a referral to adjudication and not a disentitlement. Does he agree that it is a little like giving the police a performance target for the number of people prosecuted for speeding? Does he understand that to many of us this appears to resemble a corrupt practice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We must disagree about that. I do not believe that it is a corrupt practice because that assumes that the officials who carry out the work are carrying out some kind of corrupt practice. That is most unfair to them. They do a good job and they appreciate the importance of all the targets that are being used in order to improve the service provided by the Employment Service or by the benefit agency in general terms.
We have drifted away from the point about "actively seeking". Amendment No. 65 would remove the word "actively" from Clause 6(4)(b), which provides the power to require jobseekers to provide evidence of their attempts to seek employment. That is an important provision.
As I have explained, it is a condition of entitlement to JSA that jobseekers should seek employment actively. It is an important principle and we intend to continue

611
with it. We believe that Clause 6(4) (b), providing as it does the power for regulation to require jobseekers to attend at a certain place and time and to provide information about their availability for work and the efforts that they have made to find work, makes clear to every jobseeker what he or she is expected to do. That will enable us to monitor whether jobseekers are continuing to meet the "availability" and "actively seeking employment" conditions, in addition to offering guidance and help to them in their efforts to find work.
I do not believe that the amendment should be accepted. It may not change much of the power that we have under Clause 6 but it certainly would water down the message that jobseekers should make every effort to return to work. That would not be constructive or worthwhile and it would not meet the approval of the country at large or all those people who are genuinely seeking work. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn; but if the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that we divide rules the day, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who spoke in support of the Government, made a much better case than that made by the Minister. They merely asked us to believe that if our amendment were passed, everything would fall away and that people could lie on their backs, receive unemployment benefit and that there would be nothing to stop them. To those noble Lords, the word "active", which most of those in the Employment Service have never heard of, never seen, never introduced and never needed, was the critical word—take away "active" and all is lost. That is nonsense, but it has a certain surface and plausibility.
At the beginning of the Minister's comments he toyed with that defence. He told us, first, that most of the unemployed, or a great number of them—he did not agree at the end—wished to return to work. At the end of his speech he told us about those who did not. The Minister then said that the Government will undermine "it". I believe that he meant their wish. He said, "We will undermine their wish by taking away this particular test".
It is a strange idea that all those people should be lying around saying, "Now I won't have anything to do. I don't want to go back to work; I previously did, but I have lost my desire to work because I happen to know that they have taken a word out of the Bill". The Minister was much closer to the truth when towards the end of his speech he began to explain clearly—more clearly than we did—precisely how the Government see the Employment Service operating. It is there to test people. It is there to find people wanting. It is there in the figures, to which we shall return later, that year by year, under the crucial use of that phrase, more and more people find that their benefit is disallowed. That is the object of the exercise. That word is a crucial part of that exercise and that is why I shall divide the Committee.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Methuen, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Diamond, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northfield, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Freyberg, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

White, B.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hooson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Aldington, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ampthill, L.

Downshire, M.

Astor, V.

Ferrers, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gage, V.

Birdwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blaker, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gowrie, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cadman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hogg, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hothfield, L.

Chesham. L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Coleridge, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Courtown, E.

Layton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Leigh, L.

Lindsay, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cross, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cumberlege, B.

Lucas, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

613

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rawlings, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Romney, E.

Marlesford, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Milverton, L.

Savile, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Seccombe, B.

Moyne, L.

Sharples, B.

Munster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strange, B.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Norrie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Prior, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, leave out line 13.
The noble Lord said: This amendment directs itself to the major new innovation in this part of the Bill; namely, the jobseeking agreement. Under the Bill as it stands, in order to qualify for benefit, an unemployed person, among all the other things which he must do which I mentioned in relation to the last amendment, must enter into a jobseeking agreement which remains in force at the time of the benefit. We are proposing to leave out line 13 on page 1 of the Bill which will mean that there will be no requirement that a person must sign a jobseeking agreement as a condition for receiving benefit.
We are not saying that there should not be a jobseeking agreement. After all, the Government are very fond of telling us—and they are right—that the idea of a jobseeking agreement came from the long-standing practice of a back-to-work plan. Often they speak as though the jobseeking agreement is no different from the back-to-work plan. If the Government want to call the back-to-work plan a jobseeking agreement, that is all well and good. We are not saying that that should not exist. We are not saying that all the other conditions which must be satisfied in order for a worker to claim benefit of any kind should not still be in the Bill.
Again, I make no apology for the fact that the idea comes out of the work and the research carried out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau. In its publication, which I hope the Minister has to hand, entitled In Search of Work, it has made it its business to catalogue the consequences of the present situation as regards the way in which the back-to-work plans have been developed; for example, the waste of time, the inappropriate jobs and the annoyed employers—indeed, all the factors that I sought to place before the Committee during discussion on the previous amendment.
The Citizens' Advice Bureau says that, if we take the back-to-work plan and call it a jobseeking agreement, empower employment officers to give formal directions for the carrying out of such a plan and, unless that agreement is fully met, make it automatic—because that is what it means—that benefit will be denied, thus forcing the individual worker into the adjudication process, then we will further exacerbate the problems of dealing with long-term unemployment which we discussed previously.
I do not know whether many Members of the Committee remember the stories about the Ministry of Labour as it was before the war. In a study of the Ministry of Labour at the time, Freedland and Davies show that immediately before the war the ministry was carrying out practices which are very similar to those now before us; in other words, it had its version of a back-to-work agreement. A distinguished member of the Ministry of Labour took unpaid leave for six months and went around the country doing what sociologists would now call "participant observation", presenting himself as a member of the unemployed. He wrote out the results afterwards showing what was happening in the employment offices of the ministry, and a Conservative Government changed the way in which that department worked. Would that such simple research could have a similar effect today! I say that because there is research which reveals the same situation. Therefore, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: When the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, spoke on Second Reading, she said that the jobseeker's agreement was not an agreement. That is the hub of the whole argument. A claimant has to enter into a jobseeker' s agreement on pain of losing benefit. If that was an abduction case, that would count as evidence of duress. The penalties of not entering into an agreement are so severe that it seems to me that the claimant will, in effect, have to enter into whatever agreement the employment officer demands.
I am not happy about anyone being so completely under the power of another. I am certainly not happy about having conditions which are that fundamental to a person's survival being made that far down the line. I know that the Minister will say that the situation is subject to review by the adjudication officer, and I shall not go into details because we have done so before. However, what worries me is the imposition of unreasonable conditions.
I shall give the Committee one example which has actually happened. If someone is homeless, it is part of proving that he is actively seeking work to prove that he is looking for accommodation. That is fair enough; indeed, I do not believe that anyone would argue with it. But what appears to those concerned to be proof that someone is seeking accommodation may vary.
There was one case which happened in London this past winter. It involved someone who was homeless and who was ruled not to be looking for accommodation because he had a dog which he would not give up. Because that person would not abandon his dog he was deprived of all right to benefit. I find that absolutely outrageous. It is an exercise of arbitrary power, without

615
any warrant, which one might successfully appeal against under the present law. But whether one could successfully do so under the new law is something that we simply cannot tell until we know what criteria the adjudication officer is to use. Moreover, as such criteria will be in the regulations, which are not before us, we cannot make a judgment.
Here we have someone "drest in a little brief authority" who can sign away someone else's future. Alternatively, because many employment officers are not the type who like to be "drest in a little brief authority", we may have someone who was previously capable of enjoying an excellent relationship with claimants but whose relationship with them is completely ruined by the power that he now has to use. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, told me that his great-grandfather's actual words were: "Power tends to corrupt". It does not always do so, but the risk that it may is very great. The amount of power which is being given to the employment officer is such that I would not give to anyone on earth. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: It seems to me that the jobseeker's agreement is an essential part of the Bill. I would very much regret to see it removed. I take the point just made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the parties to the agreement may not be entirely equal. However, the fact is that there is an agreement. It is a positive matter which strikes me as being more effective than the present signing-on arrangement, which is often a rather negative procedure. At least in this concept there has to be an agreement between the Employment Service—and I assume its good will and intention to do everything it can to assist the unemployed person to find a job—and the person who is seeking employment. As I understand it, the agreement is a continuing one. It seems to me that it has the makings of a great improvement on the present rather negative signing-on arrangement. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is exactly the nub of the issue that we are now discussing. If the jobseeker's agreement is indeed a valid and voluntarily entered into agreement between an employment officer and a jobseeker, then, as the noble Lord suggested, it might be a very valuable and constructive way for people to go back into work. I believe that all of us on both sides of the Committee strongly approve of that aim.
However, the problem is whether that is the kind of agreement that it will be or whether it will be the kind of agreement referred to by my noble friend Lord Russell—namely, a coercive one with the word "agreement" having Orwellian overtones and not meaning what it stands for. Quite sincerely, that is the point about which a number of us are probing the Minister.
On 3rd April, when responding to questions on the issue, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to the fact that jobseekers have different paths and different qualities. That was certainly music to many ears because
616
it is right that jobseeker's agreements should match the individual capabilities, talents and experience of the jobseeker. However, those of us who have read the memorandum from the two departments carefully are more frightened now than we were before about what is constituted within that agreement. For example, it looks as if one of the questions that jobseekers may be asked to respond to is: "What is the lowest wage you will accept for a job?" If that is correct, it would remove the whole basis of a free market because there cannot be an open agreement reached when one side has already had to declare in advance the lowest possible reward that he will accept and the other side has not had to give any information whatever.
The memorandum indicates that there will also be provision for just how long someone can insist upon trying to get a job in the area for which they are qualified and trained. We spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on training young doctors, young architects, skilled craftsmen and the like and we are now saying that as little as seven days may be laid down in a jobseeker's agreement as the time within which he can seek jobs for which he is qualified and not be forced to become a dishwasher. A dishwashing job is an honourable job but whether we really want people who have been trained for many years to take such jobs is an open question and yet the jobseeker's agreement leaves that question entirely in the hands of an employment officer. However well disposed he or she may be, this puts a whiphand with the bureaucracy and it amazes me that any Conservative Government, of all governments, should so readily accept that.
I find the jobseeker's agreement, if I may say so, the most ambiguous, the strangest and the most misleading of all the parts of this troubling Bill. I hope that Members of this Chamber will consider carefully before dismissing this amendment because we could reframe it in terms of a genuine agreement reached voluntarily by both sides. Such wording would certainly lay many of my fears to rest—like the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, at Second Reading—but certainly the memorandum does not bear out that interpretation and puts a much narrower and much more coercive slant on the whole concept of the jobseeker's agreement.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment would remove one important part of the jobseeker's allowance proposal that we are bringing before the Committee. It would remove the requirement that jobseekers should draw up and agree a jobseeker's agreement in order to receive a jobseeker's allowance. The agreement is a central feature of JSA. It will ensure that all claimants understand from the outset the conditions of entitlement to JSA. This is not the case at present and too often people are unaware of or misunderstand what is expected of them. The agreement is also a vital step in helping each individual decide, with the Employment Service, the best way for him or her to look for work. Making the agreement a condition of benefit ensures that each jobseeker will get the individual attention that he deserves.

617
The agreement will improve understanding of the labour market conditions of JSA by bringing them together in one place. It will be a record that the individual and the Employment Service can consult. I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was saying that if only I agreed to make this voluntary, he would be quite happy with that. Indeed I think he mentioned the current voluntary back-to-work-plan which the vast majority of jobseekers already complete, I presume because the vast majority see the benefit in doing so. I believe this amendment would deprive the jobseeker of an opportunity to focus on his best route back to work. This would damage the intention of the reforms, which is to maintain the individual's focus on the labour market.
We will discuss more of the detail of this matter when we discuss Clause 7. At the risk of repeating what will be said later, I wish quickly to outline some matters in order to answer one or two of the points that were made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Each agreement will set out what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for work and the actively seeking employment conditions of JSA which will be contained in regulations made under Clause 6 of the Bill.
If the employment officer and the jobseeker cannot reach agreement—this perhaps answers the point made by the noble Earl—then regulations will provide that the proposed agreement can be referred at the instigation of either party to an independent adjudication officer. That officer will determine whether or not the proposed terms and conditions would allow the jobseeker to meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, and if it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with them. If the jobseeker is not content with the adjudication officer's determination, the intention is that the regulations will enable him to ask for his case to be reviewed by a second officer. If he is still dissatisfied, he can appeal to the social security appeals tribunal.
Therefore I do not believe that it is quite as coercive a document as perhaps we were being frightened into believing. I believe this document and this agreement are an important part in helping people back to work, which is certainly what we in the Government are trying to do. We are trying to help people find ways back into employment. We believe this agreement does that. I hope that with my explanation the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will withdraw his amendment but if we wish to maintain the record of the Committee—we have had two Divisions on the two amendments we have discussed so far—and if we have a Division, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: The Minister could go quite a long way to reassure us on the ground that we have been covering if he could give us an assurance that a claimant who is not satisfied with the jobseeker's agreement he is asked to sign would continue to enjoy benefit pending the hearing of the appeal to the adjudication officer, and if he could tell us that adjudication officers in future may be able to get through these cases and have time to hear
618
them properly in rather fewer than the 22 weeks, which the Minister referred to as the present duration. Those two points are vital; after that we can begin talking.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to say a brief word on this. I strongly support the words of the noble Earl. I think that what he suggests would go a long way to ease one's anxiety. I also believe that it would go a long way to relieve our anxiety if the word "agreement" was replaced by something more suitable. After all, we have heard from the Minister that this so-called agreement is going to adjudication. If something is adjudicated upon and one side does not agree but nevertheless has to abide by, and does abide by, that adjudication, it does not necessarily mean that he agrees with it. It is a judgment which has been imposed upon him. Therefore "agreement" is simply not a suitable word. If the Minister would consider substituting something which is more truthful than the word "agreement", I believe that would help a great deal.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps my noble friend should consider the use of a jobseeker's plan or a jobseeker's planned search because obviously this is a proposal between the agency and the individual seeking a job as to how best he can find a job. I do not think the word "agreement" is right. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on that.
Lord Rix: I have a question for the Minister that I pose wearing my British actor's Equity hat. Will actors seeking employment be made to enter into this jobseeker's agreement? As I am sure the Minister is aware, many actors can be out of work for long periods while actively seeking employment. I have never yet known a Jobcentre help an actor to obtain such employment. Therefore I am interested to know the wording that would be used in that particular agreement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I do not know a great deal about the lifestyle of actors other than what I sometimes read in the more popular press and I am sure that that represents the lifestyle of only a minority of actors. We are getting into the problem of detail. It is difficult to go into detail as regards hypothetical cases. However, if such an actor were to claim benefit, in his agreement his jobseeking would outline what he might do. I concede that there might not be too many advertisements for actors in Jobcentres. However, I believe there may occasionally be some. It perhaps depends on the grade of the actor. However, the top ones are probably earning so much money that I suspect they would not qualify for any of the benefits that we are discussing. Obviously going to theatrical agents or the like would be the way that an actor would actively look for work. I believe it would be perfectly acceptable for that to be included in an agreement. However, the person will have to sign the agreement. I believe that is how he will be able to indicate that he is actively seeking work.
I say in reply to the noble Earl that all vulnerable groups will have access to hardship payments immediately. I believe he referred to someone who was not prepared to sign an agreement and who wanted to

619
get a second opinion. Others will have access to hardship payments after two weeks but the vulnerable groups will have it immediately. I hope that answers the question that he posed to me.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, can he explain to me how one can be disentitled to a means-tested benefit without experiencing hardship?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are now beginning to go into hypothetical cases. I presume that the reason that someone does not wish to sign an agreement is one of principle. I would hope that we would then be able to conclude a second opinion quickly. The option is available. Members of a vulnerable group can be paid immediately under the hardship payments. For those who are not in a vulnerable group the period is two weeks. We believe that people ought to sign an agreement. We do not believe that they ought to be able to spin out not signing the agreement.
Lord McCarthy: I am beginning to get the measure of the noble Lord. He does not like being asked about hypotheses and, even more, he does not like being asked about detail. So we have to get between a hypothesis and the detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, does not seem to have heard of a back-to-work plan. He seems to think that the Employment Service works on the basis that you just sign on. I shall not say what it did, but it certainly does not work on that basis now. A lot more than signing on goes on now. There is a back-to-work plan. Much of the back-to-work plan is analogous to what the Government say they want to do with their new agreement. We do not see why that should be imposed by law, by fiat, through this Bill on the poor unemployed person. That is one of our main differences.
Before I come to what the Minister said, I can answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. After seven days the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would be asked to go and wash up or dig the roads, at any rate or any price. Otherwise he would receive no unemployment pay. He would get unemployment pay for seven days and then he would be out. If anyone says that there will be special arrangements for actors, the noble Lord knows very well that there will be no such special arrangements.
So we come to what the Minister actually said. He said what he said before. It is just as unsatisfactory and just an unconvincing. We do not see why a developed back-to-work plan needs to be put into legislation like this and imposed on unemployed people, forcing them more and more into quasi-judicial activities in order to try to get their rights. It is exactly the same issue. It does not involve hypotheses. It does involve a little detail, but we shall not press it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("except in the case of a disabled person").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and another of my amendments. Amendment No. 78. I do not propose to speak to Amendment No. 48. The noble Baroness is quite capable of doing that for herself.
Disabled people will be significantly affected by the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. In 1996–97 it is expected that between 150,000 and 190,000 disabled people will sign on following the replacement of sickness and invalidity benefit with the more restrictive incapacity benefit. The conditions for the jobseeker's allowance are that someone has to be capable of work, available for work and actively seeking work. Disabled people can face problems at each of those stages. Proving that steps are being taken to find work will become an issue for disabled people once they have been accepted as capable of and available for work.
I shall deal first with the category of capable of work. During the passage of the Bill through another place, Ministers stated that a decision on work capacity made by the Benefits Agency for incapacity benefits purposes would be accepted by the Employment Service, so there should be no problem of people falling between two stools. However, there is already some evidence, in a survey by RADAR and the Disability Alliance, that a third of people moving from invalidity benefit to sign on had problems in establishing a claim for unemployment benefit because they were not accepted as being fit enough to sign on or to be available for work.
As regards availability for work, the current rules allow people to place restrictions on their availability for work where those are reasonable given the person's physical or mental condition. If the restrictions are accepted as reasonable, the individual is exempt from the requirement applied to other claimants with restricted availability to show that he still has a reasonable prospect of finding work despite the restrictions.
As regards the actively seeking work test, once claimants have been accepted as capable of work and available for work they have to show that they are taking steps actively to seek work, which include contacting employers, looking in newspapers and drawing up a curriculum vitae, as well as other things. Those steps will form part of the jobseeker's agreement which has to be signed as a condition of receiving the jobseeker's allowance.
The amendment would exempt disabled people from having to show that they are actively seeking work. The aims of the jobseeker's allowance, as stated in the White Paper, include the tightening of the labour market conditions for receiving benefit. The amendment does not seek to undermine that aim but to limit its application.
The actively seeking work condition for receiving benefit was introduced only in 1989. However, it appears that more people are having their benefit disallowed for failing actively to seek work. The Unemployment Unit reports that between April and December 1994 some 20,000 claimants were disqualified for that reason—three times as many as in the previous year. I understand that at the same time the Chief Adjudication Officer's report shows that 92 per cent, of decisions to disqualify from benefit were unsatisfactory. A growth in numbers being disqualified for failing actively to seek work, together with an increase in disabled people signing on because they have failed the new all-work test for incapacity benefit, has given rise to concern that many disabled people could encounter problems in meeting the condition of actively seeking work.
Surely those people who only just fail the incapacity test by scoring less than 15 points and who are likely to have substantial disabilities should only have to show their availability for work rather than also to have to show that they have taken steps to find it.
Incapacity benefit regulations now allow disabled people the choice of signing on as unemployed where they would pass the incapacity test and so be entitled to incapacity benefit. The regulations were debated in Standing Committee in the other place on 23rd March. It appears from Hansard that such people will not have to pass tests of availability and actively seek work when signing on.
In the case of disabled people it is illogical on the one hand to exempt them from the requirement to show that they must have a reasonable prospect of finding work while on the other hand to require them to take steps to seek work.
Many disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance are likely to have been on benefit for a number of years, in many cases six years or more according to the Department of Social Security's own research. Their skills are likely to be out of date and they will require considerable assistance in moving into work. That will not be achieved by making them demonstrate how many job applications they have completed or how many telephone calls they have made to potential employers. Similarly, merely pushing disabled people towards jobs which are not realistic or for which they are not ready may mean that they take the job and then have to leave, possibly then falling foul of the voluntary unemployment rules when reclaiming jobseeker's allowance.
Rather than forcing disabled people into demonstrating that they are taking active steps to find work, surely it would be a better use of resources to encourage the greatest possible use of the specialist advice of disability employment advisers and placing, assessment and counselling teams. Although the Employment Service has been given an extra £71 million to help people who come off incapacity benefit and sign on as unemployed during the next three years, it is of some concern that the estimated numbers referred for specialist help to the placing, assessment and counselling teams are fewer than one in five of the total
622
number expected to sign on. This suggests that the proposals will help only the minority of disabled people who sign on.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 78 in Clause 7. This clause introduces the jobseeker's agreement as a condition of receipt of the jobseeker's allowance. It stipulates that an agreement shall not be entered into unless the employment officer is satisfied that the conditions of availability for actively seeking work are satisfied. This amendment will remove the reference to the actively seeking work condition where the claimant is a disabled person. In moving the amendment to Clause 1, the arguments for removing the condition of actively seeking work from disabled people remain. This amendment seeks to carry through those arguments to the jobseeker's agreement itself. It will ensure that an employment officer cannot decide not to enter into the jobseeker's agreement if he considers that the disabled person cannot undertake the steps required in showing that he is actively seeking work. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We in this Chamber know perfectly well that disabled people are often eager to work and do so with great distinction. However, the range of work that they are able to do is inevitably reduced. For that reason the requirement of actively seeking work may become rather onerous. Perhaps the ability to work depends upon transport arrangements that may involve a carer or upon the job of a particular type becoming available which is consistent with the particular physical handicap. To require them to go about actively seeking work on a regular basis, when in that week there may not be any work that they can sensibly seek, is not a productive use of everybody's time.
I believe that the same argument applies to Amendment No. 78. That amendment allows a disabled person to keep the own occupation test for rather longer than others. The own occupation test is particularly important for somebody with a disability. He or she will have learnt all of the adjustments to carry on a particular type of job with a particular type of handicap. When you move the individual outside that situation a new learning process has to be gone through. Inevitably, that will take time. To give them a little longer in their own occupation test makes a good deal of sense. I am happy to support these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I also wish to support Amendment No. 5 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 78. This is the first time this evening that we have had the opportunity to discuss one of the major concerns expressed all round the House at Second Reading. I refer to the interface between what many of us believe to be a very unpleasant jobseeker's Bill and a very harsh new incapacity benefit. Both pieces of legislation share a lot of common features. They are both marked by an increased severity of test. If one passes the test a reduction in benefit follows. The Minister has never justified why both hurdles are required. If the problem is that people inappropriately claim benefit, to make the test more harsh, as both pieces of legislation will do, should be sufficient. There is then no need to cut benefit because people will have

623
earned that benefit. But if the problem is that people claim the wrong benefit because either invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit is too generous, government can align the benefit without making the test more harsh. To go for both—increased severity of test and reduced adequacy of direct benefit—is doubly unpleasant. The worst effect of all of this will be felt by those people who lie at the interface between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance.
We have heard nothing so far this evening to allay our fears —perhaps the Minister can do so this evening—that people who are refused incapacity benefit because they are regarded as being available to do some work may fail JSA on the actively seeking work or capability test, because in the judgment of benefit officers they are not able or willing to do enough work to meet the jobseeker's agreement. We believe that the Government have stumbled into a very simple mistake. They have adopted an either/or test. Either one is well or one is sick. If one is sick and, on the Government's test, one scores more than 15 points on functional aptitude, or 10 points on mental health, one receives incapacity benefit. If not, one gets JSA or nothing.
Clearly, many conditions lend themselves to a simple either/or test. One can either walk five yards or one cannot. Many other conditions are partially disabling or fluctuating. For example, a person who cannot stand for more than 30 minutes without having to sit gets seven points; a person who cannot raise his arm to his head to put on a hat or coat gets six points. Taken together, those two conditions will disqualify most people from most physical work, yet they get only 13 points and will fail the test for incapacity benefit and will have to seek work under the JSA agreement. On most judgments such a person is partially disabled, but there is no way in which to recognise that within the incapacity benefit as established by government. Others may have a fluctuating physical condition which equally does not fit the either/or test. MS is one such and severe angina may be another. Another may be a condition where pain or fatigue is cumulative but will not show up at the incapacity test. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will speak to this matter from much more experience and background than I can. For example, others may have mild learning difficulties or moderate mental health problems, such as depression or anxiety attacks. If such a person is actively seeking work and obtains it, the job may not be held down for very long. Three weeks later the person may be unemployed. It will be very hard to establish good cause in such a situation when he or she has been required to pass the jobseeker's test.
We need a much broader assessment of what constitutes being capable of work and therefore what constitutes reasonable availability for work and actively seeking work. We do not need just a functional points analysis. Age, general health, existing skills and employment history are all relevant, because those are the issues that determine the capacity, ability and availability to seek and hold work.
In today's overstocked labour market is it realistic to expect an employer normally to employ somebody who is over 50 in preference to somebody who is under 40,
624
or somebody with a record of poor health and interrupted employment over somebody who is fit, or somebody who can no longer do his old job and has no skills for any new job over somebody who is young, fit, keen, steady and qualified? In consequence, recent research has shown that over half of all disabled people who look for work do so for at least a year, and a further third take over three years to find a job. Yet such partially disabled people will have to show that they are capable of work and actively seeking it to qualify for JSA. If in the eyes of the Employment Service they appear to be unreasonably restrictive, as they may be if they have minor learning difficulties or minor mental health problems, which are quite hard for the unqualified to detect—these employment officers will be unqualified—those people will lose their JSA.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, we need to ensure that anybody who has scored even some points on the incapacity test, though he may not have earned enough to qualify for incapacity benefit, is sympathetically and sensitively assessed by a qualified disability employment adviser. If the decision is then that that person is not capable of work within the framework of JSA, we must ensure that he can be passported into one of the other benefits and not left without income in the twilight world between the two.
I am confident that the Minister will wish to be sympathetic to the situation. But, as both the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is a major issue that will face us this summer. There are 190,000 people who currently receive incapacity benefit. They will come off incapacity benefit and have to present themselves for JSA. A further 80,000 people who would have obtained the benefit, in future will not do so. So a quarter of a million families may fall into that twilight area. It is one of the most worrying aspects of a deeply unpleasant Bill. I hope that tonight we can have from the Minister a reassuring answer to these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to me and to people who have a mild mental disability, people with a learning disability or people with mental health problems. I should like to clarify a point of which, perhaps, the Minister is not aware.
We have found over the years that the employment agencies have been singularly incapable of finding work for those who have a learning disability. That is why the Pathway Employment Service, which is supported by local authorities but is a MENCAP invention, came into being. It has been singularly successful in ensuring that people with a learning disability—some of those disabilities not so mild—have obtained and are indeed in open employment.
It is also true to say that the DRO's and possibly the disability employment advisers were not and are perhaps not well versed in the problems that face them with people who have a learning disability—as indeed they are not well versed in the problems faced with the employment of actors. Therefore, I hope that the Pathway Employment Service can be referred to in some

625
form or another, just as the disability employment advisers were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I believe that there will be need for a specialist agency in this particular Field unless extensive training is given to the disability employment advisers.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I agree with many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen when he moved the amendment and with points made by other Members of the Committee, although I express some doubts about whether this amendment is the right way to go about assisting the disabled.
Replying to the debate on Second Reading, when many noble Lords, including myself, raised those points, my noble friend Lord Inglewood said that:
"all JSA claimants must be available for employment, but we recognise that some people's mental or physical condition may cause them difficulties in making themselves available for the full range of employment opportunities. Therefore, we will make specific provision in JSA that they should be able to restrict their availability to the hours of work that they are able to undertake within the limits of their condition".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 54]
I feel that it would be helpful to the Committee—certainly it would be helpful to me—if one of my noble friends were able to say a little more about what the Government mean by "specific provision". We have not so far heard a great deal about it. I recognise that many of the detailed points will have to be dealt with in regulations rather than by the Bill. But it would certainly guide me in considering my attitude to this amendment if, when the Minister comes to reply, he will fill out in a little more detail the intention behind the words "specific provision".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has just said. It is another Committee point which I hope the Minister will address when he comes to reply to the amendment. However, having heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, it seems to me very likely that the Government will accept this group of amendments. I very much hope that they will. On all sides of the Committee and in all political parties we have made slow, agonising and constructive progress toward reintegrating disabled people into our midst, not least as a result of the work of voluntary organisations such as the one headed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It would be a great step backwards if we did not recognise that disabled people, whether for mental or physical reasons, require more assistance to get work than do the rest of us.
Having said that, I want to raise a detailed Committee point, which is rather close to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It is with regard to paragraph 33 of the memorandum from two departments. In that paragraph the departments submit that there can be exceptions made in the case of the test of availability for work. They in fact specify that the disabled form one of the groups—they also mention people with specific religious convictions—for whom availability of work can be restricted because of the condition of the
626
applicant. However, that condition is strictly limited to availability for work and does not appear to apply to actively seeking work. In setting out the detailed understanding of what is implied by "actively seeking work", no qualification is made in respect of the disabled or other special groups.
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he can give the Committee an assurance that the qualification which applies in the case of availability for work will also apply in the case of actively seeking work, for the reasons that have already been put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If the Minister cannot give us that assurance, I fear that the disabled will be among the victims of the Bill, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government, nor indeed of any other part of this Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can understand the thinking behind the three amendments and the points made in the debate on them. The amendments and many of the points made seek to recognise that the circumstances of people who have a disability need special consideration. I should like to assure the Committee that we want to include, not exclude from JSA, people with disabilities. To that end, we have given a commitment to take the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the JSA labour market rules. Because of that commitment, I believe that these amendments go too far and should be rejected. Perhaps I may explain why.
As I have said on a number of occasions and no doubt I shall continue to say it, it is important that those people who are claiming unemployment benefits—that will include the JSA—should keep in touch with the labour market and make every effort to get back to work. We recognise that disabled claimants may face particular difficulties in making themselves fully available and actively seeking work. That is why we intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support. Those will allow a person with a mental or physical condition to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other conditions of employment which he is prepared to accept, where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me specifically about the restrictions on availability. As I said, the current arrangements will be carried forward. The acceptability of restrictions on availability will not depend on the individual demonstrating a reasonable prospect of securing work. The restriction should simply take into account his or her medical and physical condition.
Similarly, the actively seeking employment rules will continue to take account of the steps that a jobseeker has taken to find work in the light of his circumstances. Physical or mental limitations are just one of the factors that are taken into account when assessing whether the steps that he has taken are sufficient to meet the condition. I hope that that answers the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
We are also improving the actively seeking employment condition so that the list of acceptable steps a jobseeker can take to find work would be extended to

627
include steps to improve employability. At present only steps which amount to actual job search are listed as steps in the regulations. We shall be including appointments to meet with a specialist adviser, which in the case of the people we are discussing could be a disability adviser. That will be included in the list of acceptable steps a person can take to improve employability.
I believe it would be wrong for the law to treat people with disabilities as though they were not able to seek and find work. That would send a negative message, when we all want to send positive messages both to jobseekers with disabilities and to prospective employers about the importance of recognising the abilities of disabled people. It would risk overlooking a wealth of talent and skills which many people with disabilities have to offer. No more than any other jobseekers do people with disabilities want to sit around waiting for a job to fall into their lap or for someone else to find one for them.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned about people who are eligible for IB but who actually want to opt for a JSA. Of course they can do that, and I think I have already answered him in another debate in that respect. I think his question is: would their disabilities then be taken into account, having been in that position and having come across to JSA when the agreement was being made up, especially concerning availability and actively seeking work?
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend would allow me, he knows that this month incapacity benefit has come in and that a disabled person may not qualify for incapacity benefit if he is considered not disabled enough. What I am concerned about is that he may not then be allowed a jobseeker's allowance because the other officials might consider that he was not capable of getting a job. I do not want that kind of disabled person to fall between two different sets of civil servants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise to my noble friend. I understand both sides of the coin and will address both sides of the coin. I actually thought he had posed the question I was trying to answer, and so I apologise. However, I shall carry on because I think it is important. People who are disabled may be perfectly able to do a whole spectrum of work and may in fact be eligible for IB but may not want to take it. They want to get back into work or to find work. In those circumstances, as I have said, officials in the Employment Service will be taking these disabilities into account when they decide on the availability aspect and on the actively seeking work aspect. I appear to be answering a question I have posed myself, but it is a good question even though I do pose it myself.
I should have thought that anyone who actually made that decision—I do not want to stay too long on IB but to move along to JSA—in order to get a job was going to be actively seeking a job and would not have too much difficulty in coming to an agreement with the disability adviser about the steps that he could take to get that job. That leads me on to say that we shall be ensuring that those who are leaving incapacity benefit—and this is my noble friend's point—will receive extra
628
help to get them into the labour market. The Employment Service will devote £71 million over the next three years to ease the transition between IB and unemployment benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested that perhaps we were not very good at finding jobs for disabled people. Maybe we are not perfect at it, but I say to him, I hope in an encouraging way, that in 1993–94 53,000 disabled person were helped into jobs by the service.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: If I may just clear up one point with the Minister, I was of course referring mainly to people with a learning disability. They are the people who have the greater difficulties in finding jobs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was just coming on to say that I did not know to what extent that could be split between different forms of disability in the widest sense. But I have now heard the noble Lord's point twice about people with learning difficulties having special problems and I shall certainly discuss that with my colleagues and officials when we go over the various matters which have been raised today.
I now come to the point which my noble friend actually put to me and which was also put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about the person who fails the IB test and goes over to the Employment Service and asks to be put on to JSA. In those circumstances, could the JSA officials say, "No, you can't come here; you're disabled"? I think I have answered this question before in at least two debates: once on the regulations on IB—in fact, twice on those regulations—when I tried to make clear to your Lordships that the two benefits will be so aligned that no one will fall between two stools. If someone does not satisfy the IB test, the Employment Service cannot refuse them access to JSA on the grounds that they are disabled. So there is no double jeopardy there, and I hope that that assurance will help your Lordships.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am sure he is at one with us in wanting to prevent what I think the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to as the "two stools" problem. However, I believe the noble Lord has misrepresented where the problem lies. It is not that someone will turn up and be told by the employment officers, "You're disabled, go away"; but that a person who has so far regarded himself, or defined himself, as disabled because he has been receiving invalidity benefit but has failed to qualify for incapacity benefit nevertheless considers himself to be partially disabled and therefore has an appropriate right to restrict various activities that nonetheless the employment officer thinks he ought to engage in. It may be bus transport; it may be travel distance away from home; it may be the hours he would have to work; it may be whether he has a companion; or it may be a host of things which are part of his definition of being partially disabled.
I fear that it is particularly when you are dealing with mental health problems that difficulties arise. It is much easier when there are clear physiological or orthopaedic

629
disabilities which are easily perceived and understood across the table. It is when someone has failed the incapacity test on grounds of perhaps mild learning difficulty or moderate mental health disability and then goes on to impose availability for work restrictions which an unqualified employment officer thinks are unreasonable that the problem will occur. What will the Minister do to ensure that such a problem is sympathetically resolved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I like to think that I tried to address that point in the first part of my contribution. I apologise for going over it again because I might have been doing it in general terms, but obviously it would apply to someone who had failed the IB test but who had some degree of incapacity and who then came to JSA. I explained that we are carrying forward current provisions on unemployment benefit and income support which allow people with a mental or physical condition to place restrictions on the nature, the hours, the rate of remuneration, the locality or other conditions of employment which he is prepared to accept and where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. As far as actively seeking employment is concerned—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: May I intervene again? Would that be "reasonable" in view of his condition as certified by whom?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That has to be a matter for the official in the Employment Service, who will have in front of him—my memory in fact suggests that it may be an automatic transfer, but certainly there would be available a document that would indicate the degree of incapacity the doctors had found in the IB test when they examined the person. Therefore the officers in the Employment Service will have the information in front of them from those doctors in addition to what the person tells them himself.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to clarify a further point, would a person with a learning disability be allowed to undertake the job interview for the jobseeker's agreement with an advocate being present? I am sure the Minister would agree that people with a learning disability can often be open to suggestions which can be made across the table. They might accept things which frankly were not really to their benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that in those circumstances a person would be able to have somebody present to help. I shall check that, and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister again for giving way. This is Committee stage but it is something which is of major concern to us. I want to refer to the other group of claimants with which we are particularly concerned—that is, those with mild or moderate mental health problems. Under the medical test one needs 10 points to be eligible for incapacity benefit. Somebody who, for example, has a fear of going out alone would perhaps score two or three points and
630
somebody who suffers from sudden panic or anxiety attacks may obtain two or three points. In other words, they would fail the incapacity benefit test. They then come to JSA and most jobs would require them to go out alone in order to go to work; most jobs would require them not to be vulnerable to sudden panic attacks.
It seems to me that the employment officer, merely having in front of him the information that such a person scored only five or six points on the mental health test, may reasonably regard him as being available for a much wider range of work than realistically that person can do given his or her mental health problem. What will happen in that situation? An unqualified employment officer may try to impose on somebody with a mild mental health problem a wider range of jobs than that person can reasonably apply for or hold down. If the claimant does not accept that as part of the jobseeker's agreement, the entitlement to benefit will be lost until or after an appeal has been made and, it is to be hoped, upheld. Can the Minister clarify that situation for us?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am being asked quite detailed questions. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that my view on that matter was the correct one. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, poses a more difficult question. When we get into the hypotheticals I need to look at the points system to see whether someone would fail the IB test because they are so badly mentally handicapped—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a mental health problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise; their mental health problem is such that they are unable to go out of doors, and so forth. I should like to study that situation before giving a definitive reply across the Dispatch Box.
I recognise the pictures that are occasionally drawn of officials and various agencies of the Government as being little Hitlers. That is not a fair reflection of most of them. There are probably a few little Hiders everywhere, if I may put it like that. However, most people try to do a good job—even in the Government, I am told—for the claimant in front of them.
In trying to help the noble Baroness without giving a yes or no answer to a hypothetical case, perhaps I can say that if somebody who is an IB leaver makes a claim for JSA, then, as I said a moment ago though I cannot remember in response to whom, the disallowance notice and the Benefits Agency medical service's note would be provided as long as the client gave written consent. I must add that slight caveat. But if the client gave consent, then we would make sure that the documents were available to the Employment Service. If an employment officer thinks that the case is beyond him, for example, then he will also have access to specialist advice from the placing and counselling teams called PACTs, and from the disability employment advisers.
I do not want to go too much further on the hypothetical question raised by the noble Baroness. Evidence will be available from the test; specialist

631
advice will be available if an employment officer decides that the case is too difficult for him. If he wants to take more expert advice, then that advice will be available to him and he can take that advice before coming to a conclusion along the lines that I tried to indicate in the main body of my speech. We hope in the regulations that we can carry forward some of the things currently in unemployment benefit and income support and also take account of disability when deciding on "actively seeking". Ultimately, the adjudication officers and the system of review exist to make sure that nobody in the first instance makes a totally unjustified and unreasonable decision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will once again kindly give way. That explanation is helpful and I understand the Minister's difficulty regarding the detail of individual cases. But following on the theme addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier, can he assure us that anybody coming off incapacity benefit, invalidity benefit or disqualified from incapacity benefit but who has some points, though not sufficient to register them eligible for the benefit, will continue to receive their JSA? If an employment officer under the JSA agreement wishes to disqualify them and the claimant intends to appeal, can the Minister say that they will continue to receive the benefit until the appeal is heard?
We are talking about a particularly vulnerable group of people who were eligible for a benefit in the past but from which they are now disqualified because they have not met the IB or medical test. We are not talking about bad faith, scroungers or people abusing the system. These people have come into the JSA. An inexperienced employment officer may wish to disqualify them from the JSA on the grounds that he thinks that they are making too large a claim for the incapacity suffered by virtue of their minor mental health problem. They may wish to challenge that and go to appeal. Can the Minister assure us that in that case the most vulnerable of people will not lose their JSA benefit while the procedure is going through?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I can ask him to allow me to give an example, since he asked for examples which were not hypothetical. In my former constituency there was a large home for people who suffered from epilepsy. A number of them were able to obtain jobs. But epilepsy is precisely the kind of disease which occurs from time to time where somebody would not obtain adequate points to satisfy the full requirements to qualify for full disablement benefit, yet it is exactly the kind of condition where an employer may refuse to accept somebody who suffers from it. I plead that the Minister gives due consideration to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. This group above all groups should not be disentitled to benefit—they have no other means of existence—until such time as there has been an adjudication on the morality and justice of their claim.
Earl Russell: While the Minister considers that situation, perhaps I can make a brief intervention which
632
may save the time of the Committee by my not needing to speak at all to Amendment No. 6, that also being concerned with the two stools issue.
I accept the justice of what the Minister says—that he has given us assurances on this matter twice. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at Second Reading of the incapacity Bill, gave us another. They were warm and full assurances. In terms of goodwill, I believe there is nothing between us. Yet the cases keep on coming. We need to work out why.
I am aware of a couple of cases which may help to illustrate what is going wrong. They are both CAB cases. One concerns someone who had been on invalidity benefit for five years and had it withdrawn. The unemployment office refused to allow her to sign on because she was not really fit. In the other case the claimant's invalidity benefit was withdrawn. On the unemployment benefit forms he said that he did not consider himself to be fit for work so his claim for unemployment benefit was refused. These are all people of limited capacity—I believe that is the crucial way to think of it—who are being sent along to the employment officers who are being asked to tackle the job of finding them work. That may be a thankless task because it may be extremely difficult.
I am reminded of what used to happen under the old Poor Law when the poor were meant to be sent back to their parishes. When they arrived there, the parish, finding a lot of destitute people who perhaps had not been seen for 20 years, were always apt to say, "She does not come from here, she comes from that parish over there". In the present situation we have employment officers with a great flood of business sent in to them reacting rather like Dame Partington by trying to push it out. It is a natural human reaction. It is no fault whatever of Ministers. But we need to think of how to stop it. Guidance may be part of it and, since this is an immense body of work, additional staffing may help also. I do not know if my contribution was helpful, but I hope so.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that I can remember all the points which have just been wished on me at what I hope is the tail end of the debate on this series of amendments. In the hope that I can perhaps persuade the noble Earl to withdraw his next amendment, I have been able to find in this fairly complicated business what I might call the "legalistic answer" to the assurances that I have given about the question of "between two stools". Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill says,
"The question whether a person is capable or incapable of work shall be determined, for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of Part XIIA of the Benefits Act".
That is what links the two together. I hope that it will mean that nobody will get caught between the two stools. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Earl. It is also what I would have said as regards his next amendment.

633
I believe I was asked about appeals. I presume that I am being asked about someone who goes onto JSA and who is appealing against a JSA decision and is not appealing against being taken off incapacity benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to answer this matter in some detail. I was putting to him the case of someone who has lost incapacity benefit and who is not contesting that. He has six to eight points or so, and he has come over to JSA. However, because he still carries with him that partial disability which originally rendered him eligible for invalidity benefit, he believes that he must restrict his availability for work to a greater degree than the Employment Service thinks reasonable. That service then regards him as failing to meet a JSA agreement or not actively seeking work. It therefore disqualifies him from benefit. He may then appeal against that on the grounds that he is acting reasonably, given the nature of his disability, and that his restrictions are reasonable. I am asking that while that is being contested, can that individual at least remain on benefit and not find him or herself both partially disabled and without income?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the light of an answer that I gave a few moments ago about the fact that the detail in the form of the medical evidence from the Benefits Agency medical service would come over to the Employment Service, and the fact that there are specialists available in the service to give advice in this particular field, I hope that the officer and the claimant will be able to come to an agreement. I have been asked about the situation if they do not so agree and I suppose I must go on to try to answer that. I am not sure that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with the answer, but I believe that it is the same as the answer that I gave earlier this afternoon; namely, that if they come into the vulnerable group then they continue with benefit until the matter is resolved. If they do not come into that group I believe that there is a two-week period before they receive —I have forgotten the name of the benefit—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is partial benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that that answers the question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That benefit is a 40 per cent. reduction even on the basic income support level.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is a reduction, but it is an indication in more general terms of the fact that we do not want people to appeal automatically in all cases. I said that I thought that the noble Baroness would not consider my answer to be very satisfactory, but I have answered her question.
Lord Swinfen: I would very much like to read the whole of this debate before deciding what to do. This evening I shall withdraw my amendment. However, I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is himself beginning to question some of the legislation which is before us. He gave me the impression that he is beginning to ask questions on behalf of disabled people
634
because he answered a question which I had not asked. I hope that he will encourage other Members of the Government to begin doing exactly the same thing. It will make the debates in this House a great deal less difficult and shorter if the needs of disabled people are considered at an earlier stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Care of the Mentally Ill: Matthew Trust Report
7.6 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading The Marquess of Reading rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take in respect of the findings of the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the homeless beggars on the streets of every city in the land bear testimony to the creation of an underclass in our sophisticated society. Many of these people are alienated from the mainstream by virtue of their poverty and powerlessness.
I wish to speak today about one particularly troubled section of that underclass whose plight is eloquently described in the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care. These are people who suffer from severe mental illness. They feel themselves to be utterly cut adrift, not only from their fellow citizens, but also from the welfare services which have been established to care for them. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us recently, the civilisation of a society can be judged by how well it treats its weakest members. I fear that we may be judged rather harshly on that score.
Only days before the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care, was launched here at the Palace of Westminster, the Department of Health acknowledged that people continue to fall through the safety net devised by the state to protect the most vulnerable in society. As a national charity concerned with mental health and penal reform, the Matthew Trust has a finger on this pulse. Its report describes how people fall through the net and considers the human consequences.
The purpose of my Question today is to discover how the Government intend to repair their safety net and to learn what procedures will be adopted to weave the knowledge and resources of the voluntary sector into a more comprehensive caring system. Almost every day we learn from the press and media of some fresh tragedy concerning the mentally ill. The shattered lives of the mentally distressed are made more difficult when

635
insensitive coverage generates prejudice and fear among the public. That in turn makes provision of special care for the mentally ill a more problematic issue for the authorities.
Noble Lords may recall that I have the privilege to chair the advisory council of the Matthew Trust. When I addressed the House about the issue of patient confidentiality two years ago, I mentioned the trust's study of press coverage of mental illness. I am pleased to inform the House that the trust has continued its investigations and is planning a further report on the matter.
Every day the Matthew Trust receives appeals for help from social workers on behalf of clients whose urgent need cannot be met by the statutory services. Only last week the trust heard about a mentally ill young man whose home had been stripped by thieves while he was in hospital. The only financial help he can now obtain is a loan which has to be repaid from his meagre invalidity benefit. His benefit did not stretch to insurance cover, so he could not make a claim for his loss. The trust learnt from his social worker that, of the 441 clients for whom she was responsible, only 5 per cent. could afford contents insurance. That is a shocking statistic. That young man is not responsible for his mental condition, nor for his current predicament. Luckily, the Matthew Trust has been able to help him.
The report also details the work and the procedures of the trust, which has been championing the needs of the mentally ill for almost 20 years. It was commissioned by the trust's director, Mr. Peter Thompson, whose sterling work in this field and other areas has been acknowledged in this House on a number of occasions. He took the unusual step of opening the trust's files to independent scrutiny because calls upon the trust's limited resources had rocketed since the Government began to implement their plans for what is called "care in the community".
The Matthew Trust operates as a donor of last resort. It cannot provide help unless and until the resources of statutory and other agencies have been tapped. The vast majority of applications for help come via social workers, and applicants must supply evidence that all other routes have been exhausted.
The provision of modest financial assistance to mentally ill people in desperate need was once a relatively minor aspect of the trust's activities, but demand has increased by 400 per cent. since the publication in 1988 of the White Paper, Caring for People. Grant aid from the trust to individuals increased from less than £3,500 in the financial year 1989–90 to almost £14,000 in 1993–94. Indeed, the trust disbursed almost £25,000 to 312 individuals during the calendar year 1994. Some 2,000 others had to be turned away because the trust lacked the financial resources to be able to help them.
We are told that a healthy economy is built upon society's efforts to match demand with supply. By that measure our welfare services are sick indeed. One of the most salient observations made in the report is that the mentally ill are the least likely to be able to make appropriate demands upon the welfare services. That is precisely their special problem. Indeed, it would appear
636
from the report that changes in the structure of care provision have bewildered even those who are responsible for providing it. The report documents the increased demand upon voluntary agencies such as the Matthew Trust since the new care in the community policy was introduced and draws attention to the lack of resources available to the voluntary sector.
I commend the report to your Lordships because it offers a rare glimpse of the humdrum and extreme crises faced by those who approach the trust for help. It also draws attention to an unfortunate practice which has grown up over the years in the face of mounting criticism of government health policies. I refer to the practice of calling in aid statistics to smother the voices of the poor and neglected, and the use of expensive consultants to supply apparently independent justification for policies that in the public eye seem to be failing. Public relations is no substitute for patient care.
The Department of Health has acknowledged that Victims of Care is a thought-provoking document, but that is all. That is not enough, because the well-being of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people in the community, and the prospects for their families, will be determined by the adequacy of the Government's response to the report.
Only last November, in a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which is quoted in the report, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege,
"recognised the value of the work being done by the Trust in a difficult field of care, and appreciated the practical support it is able to give to individuals who are in crisis".
I am very grateful for that.
However, the Matthew Trust has been refused grant aid from the Government precisely because it gives financial help to those who are failed by the system. Indeed, the latest rejection came only last month and implied that the trust's work did not fit into,
"the Ministers' current priorities within mental health services".
Perhaps the Minister can offer us some enlightenment about those priorities, especially since the Matthew Trust was asked by government officers for 30 copies of its report in advance of the debate—and was expected to supply them free of charge.
I have been critical of the Government because they carry the major responsibility for failings in the welfare system that they manage on our behalf. Because my overriding concern is for the mentally ill, I feel I must comment also upon an apparent lack of co-operation between the many organisations that now exist to protect their interests. It seems to me that a more efficient and effective supplementary care system would emerge if the various agencies pooled resources and skills rather than pursuing narrow vested interests. After all, if the mentally ill are their prime concern, nothing should stand in the way of promoting their best interests.
What is evident from the report is the need for a Standing Committee to encourage better liaison and co-operation between voluntary agencies of all sizes and specialisms in the field of mental health care. The combined experience of such a Standing Committee

637
would provide the Government with unrivalled policy advice on how to improve support systems for the mentally ill.
These victims of care languish in a world known only to their broken minds. Those of us who, by the grace of God, live happier lives have much to be thankful for. We also have a duty to those less fortunate than ourselves.
I am sure the irony of the closing remarks in the Matthew Trust's Report will not be lost on your Lordships:
"Many of the funds that find their way into the lives of people whom contemporary society has rejected come from Trusts established by past generations. Those who are forced to live on the margins of society must rely upon the generosity of long-dead patrons for the basic necessities of life".
We cannot leave it to those benefactors to contribute to the well-being of current generations. The problems of the mentally ill may seem intractable, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Government of the day have a duty to make good any shortcomings that are identified in the services they provide in our name.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I think that his great-grandfather would have been very pleased with that speech. The question will be asked: did you know him? I did not, but within my lifetime he was an important man. After all, his great-grandfather had the extraordinary record of being Attorney-General, Lord Chief Justice, Viceroy of India and Foreign Secretary. I can think of only one person who can beat that record and that is the father of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who will wind up for my party. He was Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. With that one exception, I believe that the record of the noble Marquess's great-grandfather is unique.
I know that this is a day of much pride for those who for quite a few years have supported the Matthew Trust in one way or another. I refer particularly to Mr. Peter Thompson, who has been mentioned and who emerged from Broadmoor—not a promising start for a new career—without influence, money or credit and who built up the Matthew Trust—and here we are in the House of Lords, a solid institution, devoting some time to discussing its report. I know that it will be a source of satisfaction to the trust that it is to be the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government because her heart and soul engagement in these matters is recognised everywhere.
However, after those generally acceptable observations, some of the points made by the noble Marquess are thought-provoking—a phrase used by the department about the report—and they should worry those who rule our affairs in this area. We all know that community care is a fine ideal, and I am not disparaging it. It is much easier said than done, of course. People come out of institutions and it is said that the community can now look after them. What is the community? It
638
may mean the local authorities; it may mean the general public, which does not have great concern and is not usually quick to help the mentally ill.
At any rate, community care is a great advance in embryo, but, as the Government now admit, people do fall, and will always fall, through the safety net. As the noble Marquess suggested, it may well be that better organisation of and co-operation by the authorities would minimise the number of those who fall through the safety net, and so would greater resources. But when all is said and done, some people will fall through the safety net because there is no obvious statutory criterion under which their cases can be brought by lawyers.
I could think of a number of cases. I have mentioned one or two in previous debates. There was a lady whom I was hoping to meet, but I could not meet her because I imagine that she was not well enough to see me. She needed a nebuliser. I do not know much about nebulisers. They are required if one is to breathe properly when suffering from certain forms of asthma. I had asthma for a time. It is about the only thing I have ever been cured of. I needed an inhaler. Luckily that has all passed, but it has not passed for this poor lady. She needs a nebuliser. What happens? No one will provide one until eventually her GP, out of the kindness of his heart, said that he would lend her one for three evenings a week for a short time.
This is where the Matthew Trust comes in. One might call it a refuge of last resort. It paid £280 for a nebuliser. One might say that that was very good of the trust. But one is bound to ask the Minister—I have given her short notice of it but I think she guessed that it was coming in view of earlier discussions—why the Matthew Trust should receive no help from the Government. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND receive government help. They are both fine, large and powerful bodies. But the Matthew Trust, which of course was started much more recently with much less backing, receives no help.
I always hate putting awkward questions to the Minister because I do not think she should be put in an awkward position as her intentions are so good. Nevertheless, she is a Minister and she is accustomed to awkward questions. Will she tell us why the Matthew Trust should not receive help? Patients are sent to the trust from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND. The Matthew Trust takes them on and pays for them. The larger organisations receive help, but the Matthew Trust does not.
It might be said that that is because the Matthew Trust gives financial help. Is that the reason? If so, it is a funny reason, because many voluntary bodies give a great deal of help of one kind or another, whether or not it is called financial. They render a great service. So I am bound to press the Minister on that point. Why should not the Matthew Trust receive help when the large organisations which send their patients to the Matthew Trust receive it?
Looking at the whole matter more broadly, it is a gratifying day not just for the Matthew Trust but for everyone who is concerned with the mentally ill that the House of Lords should devote even a short time to the

639
subject. That will always be a great source of pride to the Matthew Trust and to all who take a genuine interest in the mentally ill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am depressed to hear that the Matthew Trust had to produce copies of the report free of charge. When Members of Parliament ask to discuss important reports I should have thought that they might well be paid for. The report makes depressing reading with its lists of people who have gone to the trust for help, in particular the list of those whom it had to turn away. In every example it appears that the solution to the immediate problem was simple: a new fridge, money for clothing—all very basic stuff. It is depressing that those people should slip through the net of the official channels, and even more depressing that the work of voluntary organisations such as the Matthew Trust cannot, despite their best efforts, meet the total demand for help.
The report clearly demonstrates that the hard work, dedication and commitment of the Matthew Trust to the forgotten in our society has its limits. The system cannot be functioning well if even the longstop, last-resort organisations, which are there to pick up the pieces when all else fails, cannot cope.
Community care is the right policy. Whatever our misgivings about individual circumstances, about the level of funding, and the Government's organisation of the implementation of the community care programme, we support the concept. The mentally ill should not be treated uniformly, but as individuals with rights to determine their own future, and live and join with as wide a society as they possibly can. Community care is a laudable aim.
The report states that the trust's grant-making role has increased by 400 per cent. since the 1988 White Paper, Caring for People. What we have seen since that time is a radical change which has profound effects on the users of the services, on carers, on health, social work, social services professionals, and on the way in which voluntary groups operate.
The system as it stands, works, as far as it does, because of the dedication of the people involved, but the resources available are patchy and so the provision of help is patchy. What is needed is a comprehensive and systematic approach to the care of people. As my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, who has firsthand experience of working with the mentally ill, said on Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill:
"Community care plans require the co-operation of social work departments, housing, health board staff, voluntary agencies and carers—and the use of their funds".—[Official Report, 16/3/95; col. 954.]
A comprehensive and systematic approach has to include the whole range of help from housing, education, and leisure facilities, as well as medical support. Included should be 24-hour crisis lines so that no distressed person is denied immediate help, and community mental health teams must be backed up by sufficient beds in local general hospitals. We must also give to carers adequate support such as respite care, training and a separate assessment of their needs.
640
A fully comprehensive package would come with a price tag. We are not calling for unlimited money to be thrown at the system, but if the Government are serious about the issue of mental health, and if they are prepared to back up the community care initiative, resources will be needed. Restrictions on local authority budgets at the moment are such that, with the best of intentions, the system will never be fully functional unless there is more money.
On a different note, the campaign launched this week to counter ignorance among the general public about the nature of mental illness should be given every encouragement. There is no doubt that ignorance in fear of mental illness within society as a whole gravely hinders the effectiveness of care in the community. Moving people back into the community is a departure from the health service as it has existed for a long time. As regards such people, the health service provided a system of controlling them and preventing them from harming themselves and others rather than doing anything more positive.
The health service is dealing with acute cases and it is used to doing so. Now the community must care and we must ask whether communities are ready to care. Could there have been more preparation of the general public before the long-stay institutions began to be closed? Adequate care for the mentally ill is not an easy issue. Care in the community is the right policy but it needs to be properly resourced. The work of organisations such as the Matthew Trust are vital in the overall package of care and we should give them every support.
I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for drawing our attention to this issue and for doing so in such an able and telling speech. I hope that the desperate examples of need found in the report will soon be a thing of the past because the Government have responded to the Question that is being asked of them tonight.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for introducing the debate and drawing our attention to the important report of the Matthew Trust. It deals with those who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. The report describes them as having lives dominated by a struggle against poverty and illness, which happens daily.
It is especially opportune that we should have the debate when, in terms of the parliamentary timetable, we are simultaneously considering the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. Much of the report is relevant to the topics included in that Bill. Noble Lords will remember that the aims of the Bill include additional legal supervision of those who live in the community following discharge from institutions for the mentally ill.
Noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate, and those who read the Official Report, will remember that many speakers dealt with the need for extra practical support and help for people with severe

641
mental illness living in the community. They saw that as a greater priority than more legal powers. That is confirmed by the personal stories and details that are included in the Victims of Care report. Indeed, on Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Longford and I quoted from the report in order to demonstrate the burdens that agencies of this kind were having to assume.
All noble Lords who have spoken have agreed that we want community care to succeed. We see it as the way forward and of dealing with the mentally ill. We have all supported the closure of the long-stay institutions but the vision of how we cope with such vulnerable people must be properly resourced. In my opinion, it must be supported largely by public money.
One of the most sad facts in the report is that applications to the Matthew Trust have increased in an extraordinary fashion since the community care arrangements were changed. That was mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The Matthew Trust describes its role as being as a last-stop voluntary agency. At the same time as we have this extraordinary increase in applications to organisations in the voluntary sector such as the Matthew Trust, we are told by the Mental Health Foundation that statutory sector funding across the country for community care for the mentally ill is stable and in some places it may be falling.
We know that the number of people who need such care in the community is increasing. In large cities such as London they may be discharged prematurely from institutions as a result of bed shortages. Noble Lords will remember the information that has been given in answer to various Questions tabled in this House. Indeed, it emerged again at the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. The evidence shows that, for example, in London some of the acute sector mental health hospitals have what is called a 120 per cent. or 130 per cent. bed occupancy. I found that concept difficult to understand until it was explained to me that doctors who run those units could admit 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. more patients if they had the beds. The demand exists but they simply do not have the resources to meet it. Therefore, one often has the suspicion that people are living in the community in circumstances that their health does not appropriately allow for.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, asked for a government response. All noble Lords—in particular my noble friend Lord Longford—would be more optimistic than normal to expect a response from the Minister tonight suggesting that a large new injection of resources would be made available either for the acute-sector care of the mentally ill or for community care. It is worth reminding your Lordships that the Government have said that the new Bill which we are now discussing will need no further financial provision and that the new form of care that the Bill will provide should be encompassed by the resources which local authorities and local health authorities already have.
Would it be possible for the Department of Health to offer guidance or a code of practice—in other contexts the Minister has told us that these have great force
642
within the health service—to establish some of the provisions that would make the work of organisations such as the Matthew Trust more successful not in terms of their aims but in dealing with the large number of people who go to them for help? Perhaps I may suggest three practical ways in which that could be addressed. Perhaps it would be possible, for example, for the Department of Health to issue guidance to establish limited caseloads for community psychiatric nurses so that they were not battling with huge numbers of people to the detriment of each individual. I appreciate that it would be more expensive to start on a general basis but it should be possible to establish crisis homes or hostels where very ill people could be looked after perhaps on a temporary basis while some clinical or practical crisis was dealt with.
Another solution, which would be relatively inexpensive, is that people who fall into the category of being severely mentally ill, but who are nonetheless struggling to survive and are struggling against the daily problems of mental illness and poverty, could be given crisis cards so that they had ready access to the types of service that we are discussing. As was mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, the report contains the notorious comment, made last November by those in the Department of Health, that:
"Facilities for care of the mentally ill in the community exist. But many of these people don't come to see the agencies responsible for their care".
As the report commented, that is a staggering remark which encapsulates the problem that the report seeks to highlight, because the mentally ill are those least able and least likely to seek appropriate help when it is most needed.
The strength of the report is that, in addition to giving powerful and saddening individual personal anecdotes about people's experiences, it has drawn together a number of authoritative sources and commentaries on the present state of community care for the mentally ill.
Perhaps I may conclude my brief remarks by quoting from two of the reports that are cited in Victims of Care. The first is from the Health Committee in another place, whose report was entitled Better Off in the Community? It is right to emphasise that there was a question mark at the end of its title. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has referred already to the question of the new funding arrangements for that type of care in the community. As is mentioned in the Matthew Trust report, the Health Committee concluded that the current funding formula:
"very substantially under-estimates the extra need for mental health services within the more socially deprived inner-city areas".
The 1994 report of the Mental Health Foundation, when talking about resources, pointed out that:
"A lack of resources is such a common complaint from every quarter that it can easily be ignored as just further professional pleading. But the mental health arena is crying out for more resources, stretched beyond reasonable measure in far too many areas. This is serving as a constraint on what can be done for any one person but, much more importantly, is hindering the proper planning and investment services that would bring greater savings in the long run".

643
It is very helpful that we should have this extremely authoritative report before us from the Matthew Trust, which is an important organisation. I should like to thank the trust for its extraordinarily good work within the community. The report draws together the very sad stories of individual victims of care but it also gives us an authoritative commentary from many sources about what is happening in the community. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will be able to make some practical suggestions as to how the Government could take action to meet the points that have been raised, because this problem is demonstrably becoming a crisis.
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Reading for introducing this important debate on the care of mentally ill people in the community with such perception and insight. I refer in particular to the Matthew Trust. The subject is one of great concern but, equally, it is one of great complexity. Your Lordships' debate has not only done justice to that complexity but has also taken the matter further with customary perception.
Mental illness has received much attention over the last few months and has at times been a source of controversy in the media. The Government recognise their responsibilities to people with mental illness, who have for many years been a priority group. We are committed to providing safe and effective care, whether it is in the community, in hospitals or elsewhere. We are also committed to removing the stigma which is sometimes attached to that condition and to enabling the millions of people who experience mental illness to fulfil their potential and have easy access to the services that they need. The Government fully support the public awareness campaigns referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, being run this week by the Daily Express and the Royal College of Psychiatrists and in respect of Radio 4 and BBC2 we are giving financial help and advice.
However, the difficulty of turning caring intentions into effective services is not to be underestimated. There is no single blue-print for psychiatry. The Government believe that those working in the field are best placed to develop effective local services which are responsive to local needs. Those services will make full use of the range of facilities available and the high quality care which the different agencies and professions can offer.
Effective partnerships between the statutory and voluntary sectors are essential for that. Each agency has its own unique expertise and by working with others can provide a complementary and comprehensive range of services, a point made by my noble friend in his far-ranging speech. The Government recognise the importance of those partnerships and our Guide to Inter-Agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally Ill People refers to the important role of the voluntary sector. The draft guide has been warmly welcomed and we hope to issue the final version shortly.
644
I hope that that will go a little way towards meeting some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
The Matthew Trust is widely respected for its work, giving financial assistance to those who are in need, as well as offering counselling and other services. The Government share that respect for the trust's professionalism and its commitment.
Its report Victims of Care is a useful contribution to our understanding of mental illness. We shall certainly consider its findings carefully. But as the report itself acknowledges, the anecdotal experiences it records often raise more questions than they offer solutions to. One example of that is that the increased demand on the trust's services referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, may not simply be a result of more unmet need. It may show a greater awareness of the trust's work. That is a likely explanation of the doubling in applications received between 1993 and 1994.
The report makes a number of recommendations for the income support and Social Fund systems and I shall make sure that these are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. One does not wish to diminish the cases of genuine need which the report highlights, but the 2,300 applications for financial help received by the trust last year should be set against the overall prevalence of schizophrenia, which is between 250,000 and 300,000 in the UK.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked why the Government have not given financial support to the trust by way of a Section 64 grant. The noble Earl has been extremely generous in his personal remarks about my intentions and I shall answer his questions to the best of my ability, but I sense that he will be disappointed. We have considered the trust's applications for a core grant very carefully but, as I am sure your Lordships will understand, decisions about grants are never easy. The amounts applied for always exceed the resources available, despite the fact that in the field of mental illness this year alone we allocated some £2.3 million for the voluntary section. But we have a clear policy to give priority to organisations which need pump-priming to help them become established or to develop new initiatives. The Matthew Trust is a well-established organisation. It has been carrying out its work for nearly 20 years. Over that time it has frequently shown its ability to raise funds elsewhere and it has a good record in containing administrative overheads and in fund-raising. But however deserving an organisation is, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that our resources are finite.
As your Lordships know, care in the community is not simply about money, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said in his very comprehensive speech, money is important. I assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to funding mental health services where they are needed and to promoting comprehensive services to meet individuals' differing needs. Mental health spending is currently £2.5 billion per year—higher than it has ever been in any previous year. Hospital and community health funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79

645
and social services funding for mentally ill people has risen by 171 per cent. in real terms over the same period. We will continue to give priority to mental health funding. This year the mental illness specific grant gave local authorities an extra £36 million to supplement £14 million which they invested in new initiatives. This year we will increase that grant by approximately 10 times the rate of inflation to £47.3 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, raised the question of premature discharge from hospitals because of the shortage of beds. We recognise that there are severe pressures on beds, in particular in London. That is why we have asked the Mental Health Task Force to look specifically at that whole question. It may not be that more beds are needed, but better management of beds may improve services, and certainly we know that services within the community make a dramatic impact on the use of hospital beds. The task force report shows that progress is being made by health authorities to improve the level of services.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the question of crisis cards. A number of local psychiatric services have pioneered the system of crisis cards which give essential information about people to contact should a crisis arise in a patient's care. We welcome those initiatives and would like to see them tried more widely. However, we are not convinced at this time that more central guidance would be valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked a little about moving people into the community. Our policy is to provide a comprehensive range of services to include in-patient care where appropriate, as well as services in the community. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health launched the Ten Point Plan, which I shall discuss in a moment, she gave an undertaking that no permission for closures of hospitals would be agreed to unless there were better alternatives provided in the community.
While making funding available, the Government are also taking steps to develop the quality of mental health care. We are working closely with the professional organisations, the NHS and other agencies to disseminate good practice and continue setting high standards. We are promoting alliances between health, social services, housing and criminal justice departments. At the centre of that approach is a coherent, sharply focused strategy known as the Ten Point Plan.
The plan includes proposals to strengthen the powers of supervision for patients detained under the Mental Health Act when they leave hospital. The Mental Health Bill referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, returns, as your Lordships will be aware, to this House next month. If it is passed, it will introduce a new power of supervised discharge so that patients who are most at risk comply with the terms of their care plan. I believe that those measures are designed precisely to meet the very sad—indeed, tragic—case of the young man referred to by my noble friend. I believe that his name was Martin Lloyd. It is very much those sort of cases that our new legislation will prevent.
646
As part of the Ten Point Plan we have also issued an improved version of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. New guidance has been given which prevents patients being discharged from hospital inappropriately and promoting easier access to care from different agencies. The supervision registers introduced last year have clearly identified patients with highest priority needs. We are confident that that can help prevent suicides, self-neglect and violence.
The Government have consistently supported the care programme approach and through the Ten Point Plan we have made training for key workers a priority. A national conference was held in March 1994 on the care programme approach, followed by a further three which the Government supported. We are currently discussing with the Open University and others how to take that further by developing training materials for professionals in all aspects of mental illness.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the difficulties of implementing community care. I believe that the Ten Point Plan goes a long way towards helping us do so successfully. However, we have not stopped there. Much work is continuing, both nationally and locally, as part of The Health of the Nation strategy. We are continuing to issue up-to-date guidance as good practice is identified and developed.
My noble friend Lord Reading is absolutely right to call attention to the area and to the important work of voluntary organisations such as the Matthew Trust. The Government believe that mental health will continue to be a priority for the future as one of the five key areas in The Health of the Nation initiative. We hope that there will be further advances in understanding and further developments in good practice. The Government will continue to listen to patients and to professionals and we will encourage the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to co-ordinate the activities of the voluntary sector. We will also promote and continue to fund high quality services and research.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.5 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("or is studying for less than 21 hours per week").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B. This amendment seeks to confirm the present entitlement; that is, 21 hours of study, and it will remove the provision of 16 hours of guided tuition which the Government wish to impose. It is alleged that the

647
present 21-hour rule is not applied consistently throughout the country. We accept that that is the case. Certainly there have been many complaints about that. However, we do not believe that reducing the provision from 21 hours of study to 16 is the way to deal with that kind of inconsistency. Although this is not an issue which will necessarily require a long debate, it is a fundamental issue and it goes to the heart of the Bill in that the Government's declared intention is to get people in Britain out of unemployment and into work. I do not believe that the Government's wish to reduce the hours of study to 16 will in any way assist that situation. While I accept that there are different points of view as regards whether some people will lose and some people will gain from the provision, those involved in education have said that about 36 per cent. of people will be discouraged from taking courses. Individuals will be discouraged and so will employers.
In the UK there is an increasing problem of long-term unemployment, especially among men. Some 21 per cent. of the unemployed have no qualifications at all and 38 per cent. of the long-term unemployed—over 400,000 of them —have no qualifications. The Bill does nothing to address that problem and yet it is supposed to be a Bill which is trying to encourage unemployed people to get back into work. I would suggest also that the Bill does nothing at all to rectify the skills shortage. In some areas of work there is a real skills shortage. There are not enough people to fill those positions and now it appears that training will be cut back.
A wide range of reports from within the UK and from outside —and indeed the Government's own statistics on this are perfectly clear—show that the qualifications level in this country is low. Where there are low qualifications, there is high unemployment. People are increasingly vulnerable to unemployment. The CBI report Tackling Long-Term Unemployment, the work done by the TUC, the universities, the Institute of Personnel Management and indeed other organisations and the OECD report or the ILO report all show that those countries which invest most in education and training have populations with better employment prospects. That is at the core of this Bill. We do not understand why the Government wish to move away from that and have at the same time, in parallel, cut back considerably on the training places available.
Statements by the Minister in another place give little comfort in this area. People will be forced out of education and into low-paid jobs because they will be required to take any job no matter what that job pays. Low pay is a substantial problem in Britain. Some 328,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour and over one million earn less than £2.50 an hour. The only way we will begin to rectify that problem is by encouraging more people to take better training and be better educated. In that way they will have some chance of getting back into the work market and having better job security. It would be better investment in the individual, it would be better for the taxpayer and it would certainly be better for the employers in Britain to have a workforce which is skilled.
With that philosophical approach, underpinned by a Bill which will make that a reality, I believe we will begin to make some progress. This Bill does not do that. It is regarded by people who are unemployed as mean and penny-pinching. It is a Bill which neither gives them encouragement nor practical help to get themselves off the unemployment list and back to work. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: So much unease has been expressed about this particular provision in the Bill that I wonder whether the Government consulted the training providers about the possible effects of what they propose. If they did, what was the result? Are they able to tell us?
I am very impressed by the evidence from the Association for Colleges which supports the view that helping unemployed adults to study benefits both them and society as a whole. By gaining new skills and refreshing old ones, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the unemployed can be helped back into the job market. I have heard spokesmen from the Government Front Bench say that so often that I wonder whether they have thought through the consequences of what they suggest with this provision.
The Association for Colleges says that the changes will introduce new inconsistencies and confusion and lead to thousands of adults being forced to give up their study, thereby undermining their attempts to return to the workforce.
I have also heard from the British Retail Consortium, which normally supports most of the Government's actions. It is very concerned about the effect that this provision will have, particularly on part-time workers. In a letter to me the consortium says:
"Recent discussions with TECs have indicated that there are already insufficient training for work weeks for those currently seeking training opportunities and those weeks which are available are being offered to those looking for full-time work. Consequently, we believe those seeking part-time work who require training could already be experiencing difficulties… There is therefore a real concern that if TECs have less hours to offer they will be less inclined to part fund part-time courses and the NRTC's entitlement to apply for EU funding for training will be lost without equal funding from TECs, thereby reducing opportunities to offer training for retail skills to those who seek part-time employment within the industry".
The Committee will appreciate that a vast number of jobs in retailing are part-time. Without those part-time jobs, for which a considerable degree of skill is needed in some cases, the industry would be in difficulty.
The BRC makes a second point. Retailers are seeking clarity as regards the number of hours which the unemployed will have actively to seek work in order to qualify for the JSA, and would be grateful for assurances that if those people who want part-time work sign up for part-time training courses of 16 hours a week they will still be eligible for JSA.
I very much support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on the issue.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the Ministers for their courtesy in giving us a meeting on this issue and for listening very sympathetically and helpfully to what we had to say.
There is a substantial measure of common ground between us. We are agreed that we welcome the unemployed undertaking study in order to increase their qualifications. I think that we agree that the issue of benefit for full-time students, whatever we think about it, is not involved in this Bill or this amendment. I think that we agree that there is difficulty in working out how a distinction should be made between some students who are eligible and some who are not.
I understand that the Government have had difficulties with the old 21-hour rule. They will have at least equal difficulties with the new 16-hour rule. In my view, particularly since the modularisation of courses, a distinction by hours is not viable for the reason, among others, that it does not work equitably between subjects.
There is also a cultural problem of interface between the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and the institutions. If there was any room for concession along that cultural interface that would be very welcome indeed.
Meanwhile, I understand that this is a point which does not require primary legislation. For all I have said, I perfectly understand that flexibility has advantages as well as disadvantages. This is a matter which does not have to be settled finally now, and I ask the Minister whether he can undertake that if between us, perhaps in consultation with the Association for Colleges, we could find a better way of making a distinction he would be prepared to listen and see whether we could do anything about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps, with the indulgence of the Committee, I may say a few words harking back to what we discussed before the dinner break, when I answered a number of interventions which came fairly thick and fast from the other side of the Chamber, to make sure that I got one point exactly right.
That point concerned the clarification of arrangements for hardship payments for disabled people who fail the availability requirement for JSA. As I explained, where claimants fail the availability test but fall into a vulnerable group they may have access to hardship payments. However, if a person does not fall into a vulnerable group he can have access to hardship payments only if the adjudication decision takes longer than two weeks. He can then receive payments while awaiting that decision. However, once an adverse decision has been reached, a claimant who is not in a vulnerable group will not have access to payments and must make himself available for work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There may not be very much between us if the Minister were able to remove the two-week provision for those people who, whatever the definition of vulnerability, move from incapacity benefit or have points which nonetheless fail to take them to the incapacity benefit level. Perhaps the definition of vulnerability could be expanded to include
650
such people. That would meet the issue. Alternatively, the two-week rule would not apply to the group of people with points which are insufficient to qualify for incapacity benefit, irrespective of their family circumstances, such as having dependent children. If the Minister could move either way, that would meet a very worrying concern of some very vulnerable people who might not fit into tidy categories of what constitutes vulnerability. It would not be costly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to study what the noble Baroness suggested and give some consideration to the alternative options that she suggested.
To return to the amendments in front of us, we recognise that undertaking courses of study can help unemployed people improve their employability and get back to work more quickly. That is why the Government are spending £574 million this year to provide 225,000 opportunities for training for work in England alone. We also continue to provide for people to study part-time while claiming JSA. Our proposals are designed to allow the same number of people to study part time while receiving JSA (about 80,000) as do so under the current rules, and to ensure that the rules can be administered fairly and consistently. I believe that it would set an unacceptable precedent to treat people as actively seeking work just because they were studying part time. Unemployed people are able to study only if they remain available for and are actively seeking work. It is not, and never has been, the purpose of unemployment benefit to support those whose first intention it is to study. While I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may not entirely agree with that proposition, he is at least prepared to accept that there is no point in reopening it so far as concerns the present argument.
We believe that it is entirely reasonable to expect someone who is claiming benefits as an unemployed person to seek a job actively. It is important that he maintains contact with the labour market. This will ensure that he is aware of any opportunities that are available. These principles apply to claimants studying part time as they do to others.
Perhaps I may set out the Government's proposals and look at the amendments in that light. In the further education sector, the definition of part time courses which we have used to date is no longer workable. The Further Education Funding Council now uses the concept of the guided learning hour. We have proposed a limit of 16 guided learning hours per week. A limit of 21 guided learning hours per week will mean a considerable increase in the number of people who are able to claim JSA, and of course in expenditure. We estimate that some 6,000 more people will be in a position to claim. If other benefits were in line with that, the additional cost would be some £40 million per year. The new rules that we are bringing in will produce a greater degree of consistency and clarity than is possible under the current rules.
Commenting on this, the Further Education Funding Council, as reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 17th February, said that 16 guided

651
learning hours were broadly equivalent to the 21 hours of supervised study that currently applied. The point I have made is that the old system and the system that we have proposed will cater for approximately the same number—80,000. The report went on to say that the council thought the changes would probably be cost-neutral and would align the benefits system to the way courses are now delivered. They said:
"It clarifies the position for all students and will bring consistency to the decisions of local benefit offices."
There appears to be a misunderstanding about the term guided learning hours. This terminology is used by the Further Education Funding Council for England as a basis for funding colleges for the courses they offer. A similar definition is used by the FEFC for Wales. The term has no meaning in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In England and Wales the definition of a guided learning hour will be that used by the FEFC. The arrangements for Scotland will be similar, but will need to reflect the education arrangements there. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. It is not practical or sensible to use the same definition across the whole of the United Kingdom. This would create difficulties in applying the rules consistently and could lead to similar anomalies to those experienced under the present system.
There are one or two other amendments in this group. While I do not believe that anybody has spoken to them, I think it is only fair that I say one or two words about them. I refer to Amendment No. 61B. I understand the spirit of this amendment. It is important that guidance to staff on how to apply the jobseeking conditions, and indeed the other conditions for benefit, should be made available to the public so that claimants and advice bodies can fully understand their rights and responsibilities under JSA. That is an important part of open government. I can give an assurance that this amendment is unnecessary. The guide of the chief adjudication officer to adjudication officers in the performance of their functions is a document published by HMSO and available in libraries. The majority of ES internal guides on unemployment benefit and advice and services to jobseekers are also available to whoever wishes to consult them. The same approach is followed in the Benefits Agency. We intend to continue these open arrangements for JSA.
I turn to Amendment No. 73A. Your Lordships have heard me say that the Government keep all of their programmes and policies under review as a matter of course. That is prudent management. Therefore, I suggest that this particular amendment is unnecessary. Public expenditure and public policy must always be monitored to ensure that resources are focused where they are needed and that we get value for money.
The education sector is undergoing rapid development at present. There is rather a deficiency of detailed information about study while on benefit, and the advantages it may bring. It is therefore particularly important that we keep the rules in this area under close review. That we shall do. We shall make any particular results of such work available in the normal way. The changes to the rules on part-time study are intended to ensure that the rules can be applied consistently, and they have been carefully defined to ensure that the same
652
number of unemployed people will be able to study as do so currently. The current regulations rely on education establishments defining their courses as either part- or full-time. This is no longer workable in the further education sector. The Further Education Funding Council funds courses depending on the number of guided learning hours students spend studying each week. That is why we have made changes to the rules for FEFC-funded courses. There will be no change for higher education and other sectors where the part-time definition is used.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: Before my noble friend rises to speak, perhaps the Minister will answer my question about the degree of consultation that occurred before the changes were made. There appears to be a great deal of unease among training providers. It would be helpful to know whether they were consulted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot give an immediate answer regarding the people who were consulted. One of the problems is that someone who feels that he ought to have been consulted and has not been is aggrieved. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that there has been consultation. The Further Education Funding Council has indicated that it feels that what we have arrived at will bring clarity for all students and is roughly the same as the previous position.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to press him a little further on a number of problem areas. These matters arose at a meeting with the Minister the other day when he kindly said that he would look at these issues. Referring to those in work at the moment, a considerable number accept that they have to upgrade their skills. Many are in part-time education and also hold down jobs. That is to be encouraged and welcomed. When those people are made redundant—an example is the 150 redundancies declared today at the Financial Times—they register for work and find that if a job is offered they cannot refuse it on the grounds of the education course. They have to decide whether to give up the course or take any job that may be offered. That may be a false economy, particularly if the course will give them added skills so that they may get better forms of work. They will lose that investment in time and their commitment to it. That is a real anomaly faced by people in work today. I do not believe that the Bill deals with that situation.
Another anomaly arises where somebody says he wishes to go on a course and is prepared to pay for it. The money for that course may come from savings. It is quite often the case that a family member who has been unemployed for some time suddenly realises that the only way to get out of that situation is to gain added skills. He may go on a course. At the meeting that we had the example of the heavy goods vehicle licence course was referred to. One has to pay to get training to obtain a heavy goods vehicle licence. There is a whole range of other skills that can be acquired and paid for. Yet, if more than £100 is paid, the current interpretation

653
placed upon it is that because of that commitment one is not available for work. That is a double-whammy in that sense. It penalises someone. It is a false economy for the taxpayer. It is a penalty on the individual who is prepared to give up his time and put his nose to the grindstone to try to obtain further skills so that he does not remain on the unemployed register.
I must press the Minister on those two points. Is he prepared to consider whether it is possible to deal with those kinds of anomalies, which are not individual examples but anomalies which genuinely arise and in considerable number in some areas?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I explained, it is difficult to deal with individual cases without knowing all the aspects of the case. If an officer's view on a matter appeared to be wholly unreasonable, the claimant has the opportunity to appeal to another adjudication officer and up through the system. I should have thought that if it were wholly unreasonable, the first adjudication officer would see that. So I find it quite difficult to give cast-iron guarantees about hypothetical cases.
I have discussed the matter with officials since the noble Baroness and others came to see me. We find it difficult to create a case and make a decision about how an officer might deal with it. I find it a little hard to believe, if the HGV licence in question would clearly help that person get a job and do it reasonably quickly—I do not suppose that such courses are terribly long, although they may be very concentrated—that an employment officer would insist on desertion with a week or two to go when, on completion of the course, there was every prospect of a job.
It is not necessarily the case that every course will leave you in a far better position to get a job. There must be circumstances in which, frankly, taking the job on offer on that day or week gives a much better prospect of obtaining employment than continuing with the course to its end. The course may not in fact increase your chances so very much when it comes to jobs. It is difficult to say.
I should like to be more helpful, but these matters are difficult. One of the reasons why there are adjudication officers' guidance and other things all around the country is to enable these situations to be dealt with fairly. Frankly, I should be living in a totally unreal world if I were to pretend that occasionally mistakes are not made on either side of the divide. Sometimes people have remained in benefit who did not deserve to do so; at other times people may have fallen out who, equally, did not deserve to do so. We all know that, in any system which has to deal with the individual cases of people, those things are always likely to happen in a very small number of cases.
I should like to think that the officers of the employment agencies, with the background and all the guidance that they have, would take a realistic and fair view of the course continuing compared with the job offer. There is always the possibility and much more
654
than the possibility—the prospect—that a person can redesign the time of attendance at a course in order to work and go to the course. The great majority of people in further education already do both. That is one of the strengths of the FE part of our system. It allows people to study and work at the same time. I believe that, even if somebody had to take up a job but wanted to keep on studying, there is every prospect that he would be able to, do so, just as some of the people beside whom he is working will equally be studying at the same time as they are working.
Earl Russell: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say a few words. I believe that there are slightly greater problems here than the Minister suggests. For example, I know of a case in which someone was required to sign on 15 times a week. The problem here is that most people can only get hold of one idea at a time. Perhaps the Minister will remember the time when 16 and 17 year-olds were first disentitled from benefit. It used to be very difficult to get people to tell them that the right to severe hardship payments existed. In fact, in some cases they were told directly that they did not exist. That is because people had got hold of the idea that 16 and 17 year-olds were disentitled and that idea blotted out everything else.
I rather feel that what is happening here is that people have the idea that students are disentitled and do not think beyond that to all the complexities of which of them is disentitled and which not. A little more guidance in this area might possibly he useful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am very clear in my own mind that if someone is genuinely undertaking up to 16 hours' guided learning, which it is perfectly legitimate for them to do, it would be unreasonable for an officer to ask him to come 15 times, especially if those times coincided with his study times. That would be unreasonable. I shall discuss the matter with officials to see whether somebody would, indeed, be able to do that. Of course, they may have considerable suspicion that there was a lot more to "study" than study, but that of course is another matter.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I do not accept the statements made by the Minister. With all due respect to him, it betrays a lack of knowledge of what is going on in the real world. I do not mean that in any offensive way. The fact is that working patterns have changed considerably. To say that someone could go in to work and be on a course at the same time is not necessarily the case. I chose those 150 workers from the Financial Times because they are a very good example of that. Their normal pattern is to work at night time. If unemployed, they would no doubt go to the unemployment office and sign on. They could well be offered a job with work during the day. That is my point. Someone could be a half or two-thirds of the way through a course and have to give it up because the work that may be available—if there is any available—does not fit into the course time. It is a reality.
When the Bill was discussed in the other place, the government Minister was absolutely clear in her statement to that Chamber. She spoke of:
"part-time courses provided that they"—

655
"they" being the unemployed persons—
"remain available for, and actively seeking, employment"—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/95; col. 133]
I do not know many employers who would interview an unemployed person and take him into employment if he said, "By the way, I go to college two half-days or two days a week." In today's job market, the reality is that the employer would say, "Good luck to you, but that's not good enough to me. I need someone who can be here for the hours that I want him. I do not have any commitment to you as an individual."
The Minister, when discussing this matter in the other place, went on to speak of:
"the increasing flexibility of modern courses, to combine work and study. But it will continue to be the case that claimants may not turn down or refuse to apply for a vacancy notified to them merely because it conflicts with their course of study".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/95; col. 134.]
For instance, does the heavy goods vehicle driver give up the course? Does the print worker who has paid for a course in modern technology for transferable skills give up the course and become unemployed, staying on the job register in a contracting market? Does the young woman who has paid fees to attend a course to learn other skills to make sure that she can stay in work or get new work, give up the course? I do not press the Minister through any flight of fancy. These are the realities of the job market today.
I ask the Minister if he is prepared to consider whether anything could be done to ease that situation at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that I can go any further. There may be a fairly deep chasm between us on this matter. I take the view and have expressed it on a number of occasions that everybody on JSA is there because he is available for work and actively seeking it. The 16-hours' guided learning, as the 21-hour rule was, is a concession to encourage and help those people who wish to study. But I do not believe that we can set aside the principal reason why someone is on JSA —namely, that he is looking for a job—and if a job comes up, he should take that job. I do not think that we should set that aside in order to allow those people in all cases to continue to study. That, I am afraid, goes very close to actually having a special group that are no longer expected to be available or actively seeking work. I think that gets us into much more difficult territory, in which I accept there is a deep division of opinion between the two sides of the Committee.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: The Minister is right: there is a major division of opinion, and whereas the Jobseekers Bill is there for people available for work, it also has provision within it for exclusions for individual categories. It is one of those categories I am talking about this evening. I hear what the Minister says and I will obviously read his exact words in Hansard. I will not press this amendment at the moment, but I shall wish to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The contribution-based conditions]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("two complete years") and insert ("complete year").
The noble Lord said: This is the most reasonable of all the amendments put forward from this side of the Committee. Simple equity demands that this amendment be accepted. There are in fact three amendments which are linked: Nos. 11, 12 and 14. The substance of what I am suggesting is that because the benefit period has been cut in half the contribution period should be cut in half. Instead of having two complete years, we should have one complete year —the last complete year—and as long as the applicant for benefit has one year's contributions he gets six months' benefit. As I say, I shall find it hard to understand how on earth the Government could resist this amendment, but of course I hope they will not resist it.
It must be stressed that a number of things are happening as a result of what the Government are intending to do. I would ask your Lordships to remember what is happening. As a result of halving the period in which the unemployed person gets unemployment benefit, for example, a person with a working partner loses £1,200 as a result of the Government's proposals and a person with a non-working partner and savings of £8,000 will lose £2,700. That is the effect of cutting the benefit period in half. We know that since 1979 there has been a strong and steady reduction in the value of the benefit. In 1979 the benefit was worth 31 per cent. of average earnings, and now it is worth 14 per cent. of average earnings. So, even if the Government have not decided to cut benefit in half, the value of the benefit is reducing steadily and no doubt if the Government were to stay in office for a lengthy period it would be reduced still further.
However, naturally enough, the contribution rate continues to rise, It has just been increased from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., and so we have a consistent reduction in the value of the benefit and an increase in the contribution rate required to produce that benefit. Now we have a sudden cutting in half of the benefit period and people are being told that for the succeeding six months, or whatever, they must go on to a means-tested benefit. I will not go through all the consequences of that. This matter has been dealt with in other amendments by other people at other times. The question is: how can it be defended that the period of contribution should not be reduced when the period of benefit has been reduced? That is the argument behind this amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, certainly started off in a very optimistic state of mind, and I hope I shall not disappoint him too much. This is one of a series of amendments which is really moving towards the principal amendment which, I do not doubt, the Opposition wish to move regarding the reduction of the period for unemployment benefit from a year to six months. The reality of the job market is that today something like two-thirds of people looking for work find a job well within six months, and indeed many people, because of their family situation, are eligible for income support at present rather than unemployment benefit, because in fact unemployment benefit does not give them as much as income support would give them in their particular family situation.
The noble Lord made the point I expected—I thought it might come a little later—that if you have reduced the period from 12 months to six months then you ought in some way to reduce some other part of the equation, so to speak. But of course national insurance contributions pay for a great deal more than just unemployment benefit, or in the future for JSA. They pay, for example, for pensions and a very significant part of the benefit system. I do not myself believe that you can trade off one benefit against a contribution without actually looking at the total amount that we all pay for the potential benefits that we get in return for paying our national insurance contributions.
It is not an assurance: people do not necessarily get out of it what they put into it. Probably all that many people get out of it is their retirement pension, and in some ways they are fortunate. Those who are perhaps less fortunate become ill or unemployed and they have to fall back on the benefits that are there under the national insurance system. But there is not a direct link between the contributions paid and the rate or length of entitlement to benefit. It is not a personal insurance scheme. Even the people who become unemployed and find that the benefit is only for six months and not for a year will perhaps in the fullness of time be claiming the not insignificant benefits that arise from old age pensions, retirement pensions and the like.
So while I think it is a nice argument that the noble Lord has used, I do not really think it is one that the Committee should take on hoard. We shall probably return to other parts of this debate but I think that Amendment No. 12 is linked with this one and perhaps I could say a word or two about it because it addresses an important point. It would remove the need for contributions to have been paid before a claim for jobseeker's allowance is made. The effect of that would be that a small number of people could simply pay the contributions when they make the claim, and thus satisfy the contribution condition. I think it could be open to abuse in a small number of cases where people pay their own contributions. I did wonder if there was a concern here about people who perhaps found that, although they thought their contributions were being paid—they had certainly been stopped from their wages—in fact that was not the case.
658
I can assure the Committee that that is the concern behind Amendment No. 12. This clause allows contributions to be treated as paid. It protects an employee whose employer has evaded his national insurance responsibilities without the employee's knowledge. This could occur, as I have said, if a person dealing with national insurance contributions is dishonest or if an employer has gone into liquidation and cannot meet his national insurance obligations. In such cases, if there is no negligence on the employee's part he is not penalised and his contributions arc treated as having been paid. I thought I would say that, because Amendment No. 12 could have been directed at that concern. I hope, that although I did not need to say what I said, I have allayed at least one concern, even if I might not perhaps have entirely satisfied the noble Lord's optimistic view at the beginning of his contribution.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad the noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 12; we shall come to that in a moment. I said that I could not imagine what the Minister would say, but I did not imagine that he would say nothing. But that is in fact what he said. I shall not go into it now—it is far too late—but at one stage he said that two-thirds of the unemployed are not long-term unemployed, which means that one-third are. He said that they are better off on means-tested benefits. I do not believe he meant that, but that is what he said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In fact there are circumstances—for example, where there is a spouse and children—when a person may find that he receives more money on income-related benefit than on unemployment benefit. In certain circumstances they are able to do that. Not everybody in the first 12 months currently receives only unemployment benefit. Many receive income support because that is a fairer benefit for their circumstances.
Lord McCarthy: I thought that income support and unemployment benefit were obtainable now. In fact the Government are taking them away. Is that not right? I am sure we can agree that few people will be better off on income support.
The Minister said also that we should not worry about comparability between what people pay in contributions and what they receive in benefits because there is a kind of cross-subsidy. The Government are cutting the benefit in half but the contribution is exactly the same. Nevertheless, they say, "Never mind, you may receive an old-age pension". That appears to be their justification. I do not regard that as an appropriate argument.
The Minister says that there are certain overall benefits to be obtained from this system. We all know what they are. The Government are doing this to reduce expenditure in the hope that they can justify a round of tax cuts. At the end of the day that is what will happen. So in fact there are no benefits for people who will one day receive the old-age pension. It seems perfectly reasonable to us that, if a benefit is cut in half, the contribution should be cut in half or at least reduced.

659
We cannot see the reason for the provision to which Amendment No. 12 relates. We do not believe that the Government think that there really is any case. The Government do not give examples. Where is the circumstance when somebody somehow pays in a sum of money in the last week to pay themselves into a benefit? Why do not the Government give examples? An issue of this sort must be based on the belief that there is observable, clear misuse of the benefit; that there are a range of people who at the last minute come along and pay up their benefit in the last week. If that is so, why do not the Government stipulate two or three weeks or perhaps a month? Why do we have this strange provision that one cannot get out of being disentitled to a benefit by paying the money in during the last week? I do not believe that those circumstances will ever arise. Unless the Government can give me an answer to that question, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("25") and insert:

("(i) in the case of a person aged 25 or over, 25; and

(ii) in the case of a person aged under 25, 20").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. When introducing the last group of amendments my noble friend Lord McCarthy said that they concerned a matter of simple equity. These amendments are even more simply equitable than the previous group and I hope we can convince the Minister of that.
The purpose of the amendments is to adjust the contribution conditions for jobseeker's allowance for the unemployed aged less than 25 to reflect the lower level of benefit that they will receive in return for those contributions. We believe that because they receive less they should pay less. It is a matter of simple equity. I am not sure that the Government fully understand that concept. The Labour Party believes in the ultimate perfectibility of man and will continue to try to convince the Government of that.
We want to ensure that the rules which govern entitlement to jobseeker's allowance are fundamentally fair. Unless the existing rules are reviewed, young people who become unemployed will find themselves, having worked and having paid the same level of contribution as older people, receiving less benefit in return. That is not equitable. The amendment will ensure that the contribution conditions of the jobseeker's allowance for young people reflect the lower rate of benefit to which they are entitled. We know why there is a lower rate of benefit; it is for no other reason than to save money.
Under the jobseeker's allowance it is proposed that unemployed people under the age of 25 will receive a lower rate of benefit which will be paid at the same rate for this age group as income support. Thus, at the 1995–96 rates, an unemployed 24 year-old will receive
660
£36.85 per week in jobseeker's allowance as opposed to £46.45 for a 25 year-old —a difference of 20 per cent. or a £520 25th birthday present.
The Government accept the general principle of paying less benefit to unemployed people under the age of 25. All the evidence we see from the CAP and elsewhere indicates that their cost of living—and this is a matter of pure common sense—is no lower than for those aged over 25 and the lower rate of benefit will cause severe hardship. It will make it much more difficult for those people to seek work. The CAP provided us with examples. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by going through them, but there are extremely worrying cases.
While the rate of the jobseeker's allowance for the under-25s will be significantly reduced, the amount that they pay in national insurance contributions remains unchanged. It means that young people will be paying more than those aged over 25 relative to what they receive in return. The amendments seek to reduce the contributory conditions for under 25 year-olds and the proposed reduction to correct the imbalance is 20 per cent.
On the broader issue of allowances for people under 25, the Government may justify the lower rates of benefit for that age group on the basis that they do not have the same earnings expectations and commitments as those who are older —that is what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said at Second Reading. However, we all know that a young person living independently has the same needs as somebody who is older. A person's 25th birthday does not alter the level of expenditure. Bills for food, electricity, gas and water are no higher for somebody aged 26. The lower wage levels do not justify a rate of benefit which is below survival level.
The Government may argue also that there has never been a direct relationship between what people pay in national insurance contributions and what they receive in benefits. That will not surprise us; the Bill is all about removing by statute the rights to benefit which people thought they were paying for while they were working. Unless the contribution rules which govern the entitlement to JSA are reviewed, young people who have worked or paid at the same level of contribution as older people—who have paid the same amount into the system—will in fact receive a lower rate out of the system if they become unemployed. The amendment seeks to reflect the lower rate of benefit by making their contributions more equitable.
Unless the Minister, when he replies, can explain the rationale for the reduction for those under 25, we can only conclude—I think we know the answer already—that the issue is about saving money and has nothing to do with the real needs of individuals who find themselves unemployed. The amendments seek to reduce the contributory conditions for the under 25 year-olds under the JSA to make them proportionate to the lower rate of benefit which that group will receive. The amount of contribution with which the person will have been credited will be reduced. The amendment proposes a reduction of 20 per cent. to reflect the lower rate. The figures justify that in terms of return for the contributions which have been paid. It is a matter of simple equity. Those two words have not convinced the

661
Government so far, but I hope that in this case, where the argument is so strong, the Government will feel minded to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, his amendments would reduce the amount of national insurance contributions someone aged under 25 will have had to have paid, or been credited with, in order to receive a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance. Our proposals to pay lower rates of benefit to young people are not a breach of the contributory principle: the national insurance scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme. People are not paying in specifically to fund their own benefit, and there is no direct relationship between the contributions paid by an individual and his personal level of benefit. It is an established principle that Parliament can alter rules of individual benefits and adapt them to meet current needs.
JSA is about bringing together two benefits—unemployment benefit and income support. It is a well established feature of income support that young single people receive a lower rate of benefit. Under JSA we will be adopting the same treatment for all unemployed young people.
The lower benefit rates recognise the fact that younger people generally have lower earnings expectations and commitments. The average earnings for the 18-to-24 age group are less than two-thirds of the average for all adults. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that those who are not living at home and are on their own—many in this group are still living at home—are eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Young people who have families can claim income-based JSA and get the same rate of benefit as any other family in the same income circumstances. There are ways in which young people in such circumstances can receive benefit at the same level as those aged over 25 years. If they are in circumstances where they are eligible for HB and CTB, they get those benefits without any reduction.
The main point I wish to make is that in the job market the average earnings for those aged between 18 and 24 are less than two-thirds of average adult earnings. I believe that that is a sensible reflection of the rules of the current income support system and more adequately reflects the reality of the job market in which young people are working or are trying to find jobs.
Lord Carter: There are two points on which I can agree with the Minister. It is clear that the Government can alter the rules, and they are doing that with this Bill in the way in which they have reduced the period of time from 12 months to six months before JSA becomes applicable. As we know, this rule is designed, as the Minister said, to meet the current needs, and those are the needs of the Government to fund tax cuts. I can see that I shall be unable to change the Minister's mind. We may wish to come back to this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 33.
The noble Baroness said: We want to know why there is a different definition of the benefit year than in the usual social security benefit legislation. We worry that them may be some malign intention in terms of needing to build up contribution records. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I too would like to ask one or two questions about this matter. This issue looks to me suspiciously like a Henry VIII clause. It creates a power to alter by regulation something which is in primary legislation. I understand that it follows Section 21 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It has the same power in that legislation because it states:
"'Benefit year' may by regulations be made to mean such other period (whether or not a period of 12 months) as may be specified in regulations".
It sounds to me like a Henry VIII clause. Clearly, it has been approved by Parliament in the past, so one presumes that there must have been a reason for it. Can the Minister tell me, first, why he needs this power and, secondly, why it was necessary to repeat it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly identifies Section 21(6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as having similar wording. I can take him further back and suggest that the consolidation Act of 1975 also has the same wording in it. Therefore, the wording has been in legislation for quite a long time.
The purpose of the whole clause is to set out the contribution conditions that the claimant must satisfy. There are some complicated terms in it such as the "relevant tax year" and the "benefit year". It is the latter that we are talking about. To get us into the feel of it, the relevant tax years are the two complete tax years which end on 5th April before the benefit year in which the jobseeking period begins. The benefit year is a calendar year starting on the first Sunday in January.
We intend that the "benefit year" should have the same meaning for the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance as it has currently for unemployment benefit—in other words, the calendar year starting on the first Sunday in January. The subsection would allow for the term to be redefined in regulations if that is ever thought necessary in the future. That would be important if the definition of "benefit year" were changed for the purposes of other contributory benefits.
Having this power avoids the need for primary legislation to achieve what would perhaps be a simple technical change of an alignment nature. I can assure the Committee that the provision has been on the statute book for many years and that neither governments of the Right nor the Left have used it in any devious ways: in fact, I do not think that they have used it at all. However, I believe it is sensible to have this means of changing the definition if ever it becomes necessary to align it with changes that have been made elsewhere in the benefit system for other reasons.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With that reply from the Minister I would hate to break a long hallowed and

663
well-established tradition. I shall clearly want to read what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 37, after ("period") insert ("to include any period of incapacity for work, itself not interrupted by a period of more than twelve weeks").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the linking period of up to 12 weeks for someone who experiences periods of incapacity and is receiving JSA. We know that it is not uncommon for people to have periods of unemployment and periods when they are incapable of work. Indeed, according to DSS research on invalidity benefit, almost one in five people on that benefit have spent some time signing on in the previous two years.
Both unemployment and invalidity benefits could link together to form one period of interruption of employment known as PIE. That means that someone whose invalidity benefit had been withdrawn could sign on as unemployed. If they subsequently fell ill, they could go straight back onto invalidity benefit without having to re-qualify for sickness benefit.
PIEs have also been important for people re-qualifying for invalidity benefit, as it is the first day of PIE which determines the rate of allowance. We know that the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act, with which a number of us were involved, replaced PIEs with periods of incapacity for work (PIWs). I cannot think of a convenient acronym for PIWs which does not sound rude. Therefore, I shall have to say "PIW" each time. PIWs change the relevant contribution years for incapacity benefit. In the future, it could be more important for people to link PIWs as it will take 52 weeks to requalify for the higher rate of incapacity benefit.
We know that the Bill removes the reference to the specific period of eight weeks which was used before, and instead refers to a "prescribed period". We feel that there are sound reasons to have a longer linking period between PIWs so that people who are trying out work do not lose out. There, is already a precedent in the linking rule of two years to enable people claiming the disability working allowance to requalify for their previous levels of invalidity benefit.
The DSS Research Report No. 19, which has been referred to in connection with other amendments, was a survey of invalidity benefit recipients. It showed an increase in the invalidity benefit caseload as a result of people spending longer on that benefit, rather than because of an increase in the number who are claiming for the first time. Over three-quarters of long-term IVB recipients surveyed no longer saw themselves as attached to the labour market in the sense of looking for work, planning to look for work or thinking that they could look for work.
The amendment is directed at long-term recipients of benefit and will positively encourage individuals to try out employment and to move off benefit altogether. We know that Mr. Lilley stated on 24th January 1994 that the Government want to help people back to work,
664
adding that many people who receive incapacity benefit would prefer to work. We can all agree with that. We want the process to work more easily.
I believe that in Standing Committee in the other place the Minister indicated that he would look at the whole question of linking rules in the longer term. He observed that the amendment that was moved there—it was similar to this—would almost certainly have resulted in some savings. I should have thought that that would be attractive to the Government. Indeed, we have had some easement of the linking rules for specific groups of claimants. We know that the period will increase from eight weeks to 12 for people on training courses. However, a similar concession was not given with regard to incapacity benefit, which means that thousands of sick and disabled people will be caught permanently in the benefits trap.
The amendment would encourage people to consider employment and would enable them to attempt it in either the short or longer term. It would appear to be a no-cost amendment but could, in fact, produce considerable savings by enabling individuals to come off benefit and become economically active once more. I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that it is a good idea, but administratively difficult, which is what the DSS usually says when it cannot think of another answer. I hope that the Minister will look at it constructively. If the amendment is not drafted correctly, we are willing to withdraw it and bring it back. Indeed, the Government might like to draft their own amendment. I believe that there is strength in the argument behind this amendment which, as I have said, could result in some savings for the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may be surprised to hear that in the dictionary of the Department of Social Security, the words, "Yes, that isn't a bad idea" also occur. Of course, there is a warning that they should not be used too often, but in this case I think that I can use them.
The amendment seeks to ensure that periods of incapacity benefit, where they are not separated by more than 12 weeks, will be included in the linking provisions for jobseeker's allowance. As my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State announced in another place—in Committee, I think—the linking provisions for jobseeker's allowance will be set out in regulations. Nevertheless, the Government have decided that periods of incapacity benefit will be included in those provisions.
We have further agreed that the linking period of jobseeker's allowance will be 12 weeks. Thus, periods of incapacity benefit separated by up to 12 weeks will link for the purposes of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.
We propose to achieve that effect in regulations. At the risk of tempting the noble Lord to fall into a severe trap, if he will accept that we shall do that by regulations, I am sure that he will be able to reject—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: —to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Freud says that one never makes mistakes!
Lord Carter: We now know what happens to Ministers and officials when they have served in the DSS for a period of time—their unbridled and uncontrolled enthusiasm for amendments is converted into, "Yes, that doesn't seem too bad an idea". I am extremely grateful to the Minister who has seen the sense of the argument. Obviously, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The income-based conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the hours that a partner of someone on means-tested JSA may work. The aim of the amendment is to abolish the rule whereby a partner's hours of work rather than his or her level of wages can disqualify a couple from receiving means-tested JSA. Why is that necessary? Under income support rules, one partner loses entitlement to income support, pound for pound, when the other partner is in work. We will return to debate the folly of that on Amendment No. 35. However at least it is an income-based test: his part-time earnings, if he has any; her earnings, if she has any; and the putative income from any savings, are all taken into account in determining the level of income support. It is a test of need based on income. As I say, we may object to it but at least it is a clear and consistent rule.
Why then do we have another test based on hours worked? Admittedly most women—we will assume for this purpose that it is a woman—working 24 hours or more are likely to earn enough to float both of them off income support, and, if they have children, on to family credit. What if they do not? We are saying that if someone works 24 hours or more and does not have children, the couple will retain an income which amounts to less than income support.
With the abolition of the wages councils, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, wages have been forced down. We now have plenty of reports of retail work—hairdressing and the like—which pays less than £2 an hour. Nearly 1.25 million people are currently earning less than £2.50 an hour. If someone works 25 hours for £2.50 an hour, he or she earns £62.50. From that they pay national insurance. That is less than the £73 a week regarded as the poverty line for a couple and which would incidentally passport them on to housing and council tax benefit. Yet, by working for more than 24
666
hours a week, even though that person may be earning less than he or she would receive on income support, the partner loses entitlement to income support. It is calculated that some 60,000 couples with one partner in work for more than 24 hours may have an income lower than income support.
That is perverse as well as being difficult for those families. Clearly if the couple have children the problem tends to be resolved by family credit, which tops up an in-work benefit, but if they do not have children, and if they are not in a piloting area—we have some concerns about that—they will have to live on an income below income support. In practice the woman will leave work so that the couple may have an enhanced standard of living based fully on benefits. We get back into the disincentive trap about which we were talking earlier. Because, once the woman has lost her work, the family has moved from being work-rich to work-poor; they become locked on to benefit; they fall out of touch with the world of work, and it costs us all as taxpayers infinitely more to pick up their total benefit bill. It is a vicious downwards spiral when it can so easily be rectified by merely scrapping the hours rule. The income test should be enough. We do not need an hours test as well.
The Government recognise the problem by saying that they may extend family credit to families without children; in other words, couples. We have real doubts about that, because family credit was designed as a benefit whereby the taxpayer contributed to the support of children in low-wage families. If there are no children it becomes a benefit which merely encourages the employer to pay whatever wages he likes, knowing that they will be topped up by the taxpayer through an in-work benefit. I should have thought that we would have wanted to avoid that situation if possible.
Why not instead let people work the hours that are appropriate and then apply the income rule alone and not the hours rule? That would save us all money. It would keep the second partner in work and give both partners the opportunity to return to the world of work, something we surely want. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that I propose to deal separately with Amendments Nos. 21 and 181, which were originally grouped with this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She has made out a strong case with regard to the effect on the one member of a couple who is likely to hold a part-time job of 24 hours or less. Incidentally in many cases that can now be a man, because one of the interesting facts which is emerging from the recent employment statistics is the rise of short-time work among men as well as women. Therefore it could be the man who might have to abandon his job or live on a lower income than he would receive from benefit. As I understand it, that has never been part of the Government's policy. Indeed the reverse has consistently been their policy: that people should be persuaded to work and not to live on benefit.

667
There is another factor which applies also to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. All the subsections of the clause are essentially family-breakers. The way someone can continue receiving income support is by leaving the family of which he or she is part, one of whose members has some kind of income-based support benefit. That cannot be in anyone's interests. When all of us talk a great deal about the importance and strength of families, not least in bad economic circumstances, do we want to make it the case that someone can receive benefit if he or she leaves the family but cannot receive benefit if he or she stays with it? I cannot think that that is what the Government intend, but it is what the face of the Bill appears to say. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address himself to that point when he answers the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 20 would mean that income-based jobseeker's allowance could still be payable when a claimant's partner is engaged in remunerative work. It would remove a long-standing principle of income-related benefits that couples are treated as a single unit and benefit is payable only if neither is in remunerative work. JSA is a benefit for people looking for work. The removal of the rule would mean that people undertaking substantial amounts of work for low income could still be entitled to the benefit. Those people cannot be classified as unemployed, and other in-work benefits, such as family credit, are available and are more appropriate for the people in those circumstances.
We have also announced plans to pilot a new in-work benefit for single people and childless couples. It will help those without children who cannot qualify for family credit. I am sure that on another day we shall discuss whether or not that benefit is good. However, we recognise the importance of incentives for partners of unemployed people to remain in or to take up small amounts of work. JSA will introduce a number of new measures which will help those whose partners undertake part-time work. We are increasing the remunerative work rule for partners from 16 to 24 hours. We are introducing a new £10 earning disregard for couples. Moreover, a partner's part-time earnings will count towards the build-up of the back-to-work bonus, which can be paid when either the claimant or his partner moves into work.
All those measures will help to address the problem of the working partner and will encourage the working partner to remain in work. The idea that working partners necessarily desert work is not widely observed. As the noble Baroness said in respect of work-rich and work-poor families, there is no doubt—
Earl Russell: I do not believe that my noble friend Lady Williams said that anyone must desert. She said that the rules created an incentive to do so, and that I believe to be correct.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that the noble Earl misheard me. I was talking about deserting the job and was addressing a question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that partners would desert a part-time job in those circumstances. As a result of the undoubted problems of unemployed couples and their
668
disadvantage compared with couples where one party has a part-time job, the attractions of staying in work, in particular in the light of the improvements that we have made, will be considerable. I hope that they will prevent people from making a wrong decision and leave a part-time job because that may appear in the short term to be of benefit. There is a great deal of evidence that staying in work, even part-time work, is a better position from which to develop and to get more work, or for the partner to get work, than deserting the work. I do not believe that any responsible person would take the decision to desert work and place herself and her husband in a worse position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, opened up a wider issue about the treatment of families and couples as opposed to single people. The subject is causing a great deal of anxiety but I do not particularly wish to address myself to it because I do not believe that there are any easy solutions. However, at least one of our European partners does not provide as we do, but pays a couple double the benefit of a single person. We have tried to be more generous to a single person, which leads inevitably to the kind of problem that the noble Baroness suggests. I hope that there exists more moral and social pressures and advantages in staying together and staying married than the possible economic advantage that may lead one to desert a marriage. I fear that marriage break-up, which is all too prevalent, is caused by other deep-seated social reasons and conditions arising from (dare I say?) our more permissive society.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry that the Minister did not take the very simple point that I made. The income support level for a couple is £73 per week and that will passport the couple on to other benefits. It is regarded as a poverty threshold.
Perhaps I may take the example of two couples. In one couple, the woman—and I choose the woman, although I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—is working 21 hours per week for £3 per hour and receives £63 per week. At that point, because the woman is working for fewer than 21 hours per week, the benefits of the couple may be topped up by income support. In other words, there is offsetting and that income is floated up to £73 per week. The woman remains in work and the couple receive other benefits.
In the next-door house, the woman works for 25 hours per week receiving £2.50 per hour, which means that she is also receiving an income of £63 per week. Because of the hours rule, that couple are disqualified from receiving income support and, consequently, their income is not floated up to £73. Therefore, that woman is financially worse off because she is in work and she would be stupid to stay in work.
If the Minister means what he says—and I am sure that he does—that we wish to keep people in work and that part-time work may be a pathway into full-time work, we should do our damnedest to encourage people to stay in part-time work. I am not knocking the additional bonuses and so on to which the Minister has referred. But how can he defend the proposition that one

669
family with a member working for 21 hours a week for £3.00 has its income topped up by income support but the other family with a member working for 25 hours a week for £2.50 per hour does not? As a result, that latter family would be financially better off to pull out of work. Will the Minister explain why we need an hours test over and beyond an income test?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have attempted to explain but clearly I have not succeeded. The point is that the benefit is paid to people who are out of work, unemployed and all the other matters which we discussed today. Remunerative work is just that and does not count for the payment of benefits.
It would be unreasonable if all remunerative work were to knock people out of the system and I should have thought that the increase from 16 to 24 hours was a generous concession to the argument which the noble Baroness makes. I hear that she wants the Government to go further and virtually abandon the rules but she will not be surprised to hear me say that that would involve a cost implication.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But why are the Government testing remunerative work by the hours worked rather than by the amount of remuneration received? The Minister says that there are cost implications but once a person leaves work and becomes unemployed, that costs us all £120 per week.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Dare I say that it is a good deal easier to judge the hours of work than it is to try to compute hours against wages and the wage level earned? It is a simple rule which has existed for some time. We are making an increase from 16 to 24 hours, which is a concession. I doubt whether many people are tempted to follow the route which the noble Baroness says almost everybody is tempted to follow. I believe that this provision is sensible. When the £10 is added and the back-to-work bonus is added, that provides generous assistance to people in the circumstances which we are discussing. That assists them to not only look for work and to stay in part-time employment but it defines the number of hours that a person may work without looking as though he really is working and can no longer be considered an unemployed person.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, makes an extremely good point. I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill my noble friend will read and consider this debate and see whether he cannot make a proposal to answer and ameliorate the situation.
Earl Russell: The Minister's argument that the hours are easier to measure reminds me of the Black Country man who was found looking in the gutter under a lamp post. Somebody asked him, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I dropped half a crown." He was asked, "Did you drop it here?" The reply was, "No, I dropped it over there". He was then asked, "Well why are you looking here?" The reply came back to him, "Because the light is better here". I admit that the Minister has got the better light; but he may not see anything by it.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. We hope that the Minister will not only have the light but that he will also see the light. When we return to the issue on Report—as I am sure we must because it is a silly anomaly which costs us all money—we ought to be able to resolve the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No 21:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("or unmarried").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 181. Amendment No. 21 is a probing amendment. I should like to learn from my noble friend the Minister what is meant by the phrase "an unmarried couple" in the context of the Bill as set out in Clause 3(1) (e). While I am in favour of marriage, I do not believe that it is necessary for a couple to establish a long and satisfactory relationship by going through a formal ceremony either in a religious or a civil establishment.
However, I believe that the matter needs some explanation from the Government. An "unmarried couple" is not necessarily a stable relationship. How long do the couple have to be in a relationship, living together? What happens if there are regular, possibly even frequent, changes of partners? What is the position with a couple who have got together while abroad and then come to this country where they claim benefit after having been here for only a very short time? What is the position if one of the partners in such an unmarried relationship has a living spouse from whom there is no legal separation? Can someone possibly have more than one partner?
If a married man comes to this country having legally married more than one wife abroad, I believe that he can support both, or more, wives on benefit because they were legally acquired abroad. But would that be the same situation if he entered into a legal, unmarried relationship with more than one woman? Will people who share a home but who do not cohabit automatically be considered as an unmarried couple?
There are all kinds of permutations that one could go into. However, at this hour of the night I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if my noble friend could explain what is meant by "an unmarried couple" in the Bill. On the face of it, it looks as though it is straightforward and very simple. But in the real world we know that some partnerships change, and change quite often with some individuals. I believe that all parties in this country want to establish and protect long-standing relationships. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend is asking for elucidation. Therefore, he does not need me to tell him that his amendment would mean that in the case of unmarried couples the income-based jobseeker's allowance would treat them in quite a different way

671
from married couples. Perhaps I may explain how we tried to venture into what I fully concede is by no means a straightforward area.
As a general rule, unmarried couples who are living together as husband and wife are treated in the same way as a married couple. The principle underlying that rule is that they should not be treated either more or less favourably than married couples. We will be defining "partner" in the JSA regulations. We intend to follow the definition currently used in Income Support, which is tried and tested and which includes both married and unmarried couples and indeed polygamous marriages too. I hope that my noble friend does not ask me about that regulation, because I look forward to reading it tomorrow.
Lord Swinfen: I hope that my noble friend will send me a copy!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend rightly asks me how we decide whether a couple are living together as man and wife. Some of the factors that are taken into account include membership of the same household, stability of the relationships—which I think answers the point about time—financial support, public acknowledgement, sexual relationship, if that information is volunteered, and any children. The criteria do not represent a rigid formula. I am sure most Members of the Committee appreciate that they cannot and the presence or absence of any single factor does not of itself determine the decision.
The basic policy intention is that unmarried couples who are living together as husband and wife should not be treated either more or less favourably than married couples. The emphasis in the treatment of couples is on either the existence of an actual contract of marriage or on an unmarried couple living together as though a contract of marriage existed between them. Our comparison is a general one. We are looking to see whether the unmarried couple are living together on the same kind of basis as they would do when they are married. I hope that, with that rather complicated explanation, my noble friend will at least go away and contemplate what interesting points he might make in his next speech on this subject.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to send me a copy of the regulations because I would like to see that. I feel that this is a rather dangerous and difficult area because one does not want, in my view, to encourage not extra-marital relationships but unmarried relationships that will not be stable over a long period. However, I look forward to reading the regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 23. I now call Amendment No. 22.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from ("of") to the end of line 14 and insert ("16").
The noble Earl said: It is part of the price of having a tight timetable that some amendments come up at inconvenient times on which one nevertheless cannot soft-pedal. This is one such amendment. It attempts to reverse the disentitlement of 16 and 17 year-olds to benefit which was brought into force in 1988. It is the first chance we have had to address this issue in primary legislation since 1990.
I may as well say now, since I think it will simplify the discussion, that I cannot let this go and let the Bill leave this House without taking this issue through the Lobbies. Whether I do so now or whether I do so later depends on whether I think that our timetable will allow a more convenient time in our proceedings later in the Bill's progress. What I will say to the Minister now is that I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment. If he gives me that leave, I shall take it that he has listened to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as regards the timetable. If he has not listened to him and chooses to negative the amendment, then we shall go through the Lobbies.
One of the key points here, I think, is that the Government relied, for disentitling 16 and 17 year-olds, on a justification which this Bill makes obsolete. So the Government can now afford to think again if they wish. I have here the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on the Second Reading of the Social Security Bill 1988, when he introduced the disentitlement. He said:
"the expectations of young people leaving school should never include unemployment. Not only is it demoralising but it usually leads inexorably into the so-called benefit culture. This is a one-way street leading to a dead end and we believe that the entrance to it should be sealed off. We owe it to our youngsters to channel them in the right direction and to steer them away from getting drawn into a benefit culture from which it can be difficult to escape. That is why … we would take steps to withdraw entitlement to benefit from those who deliberately chose to remain unemployed".—[Official Report, 25/1/88; col. 412.]
That is very much the same aim as that which the Minister announced as the aim of this Bill when we discussed Amendment No. 3. If this Bill is adequately designed to achieve that aim—and I presume that the Government must think that it is—then it does not need a separate disentitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds. Every 16 and 17 year-old who would be drawing the jobseeker's allowance would necessarily be undertaking a jobseeker's agreement, actively seeking work, producing diaries of applications and so forth. There is not much room for any benefit culture there.
The Bill removes the reason for the original introduction of the disentitlement. That should create a chance to think through this issue from the beginning.
When he addressed this issue briefly at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, invoked the youth training guarantee as a reason why the disentitlement might be justified. I shall believe that assurance about the youth training guarantee when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can do four things.
First, I shall believe it when he can tell me that there are not 15,849 people waiting for a youth training place. That is quite a lot of people. Secondly, I shall believe it when he can apply to the youth training guarantee the proper Citizen's Charter principle that, if a guarantee is

673
not met, one receives compensation. In other words, if 16 or 17 year-olds register for youth training and do not receive it, they should have an instant entitlement to income support while they are waiting. If the noble Lord said that, he could call it a guarantee.
Thirdly, I shall accept the assurance when the noble Lord is prepared to up-rate the youth training and bridging allowances to restore them at least to their value in 1988 when they were introduced. Those allowances have never been up-rated.
Fourthly, I shall believe his assurance when there is suitable training for those who apply for it. We do not have slavery in this country. There should be at least some very vague suitability in what people are forced to undergo. I shall briefly give three examples, all of which have been mentioned previously in this Committee. A young man who said that he wanted to work with animals was sent to work in an abattoir. If that happened in Brightlingsea it could be conduct liable to provoke a breach of the peace. Another young man who was an asthmatic was required to work as a painter. Finally, in 1991 Blairgowrie in Perthshire had 15 people waiting for youth training and there was one youth training place in the town. Even if they have access to a car, 16 year-olds are not allowed to drive, so they cannot get a place unless it is somewhere they can reach on foot or on public transport.
The object of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has not been achieved by this entitlement. We still have unemployed 16 and 17 year-olds. According to the official careers service figures, 6 per cent. of them are unemployed. That is probably a considerable underestimate. There are still 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home. According to the MORI sample 65 per cent. live away from home because they have been thrown out. In the Centrepoint sample that figure is 86 per cent. Those are not people idly wandering away from home. Those are people whose parents have chucked them out.
Crisis, in its study of London beggars, found two cases which are typical of many. One had been thrown out because she would not agree to her mother's insistence that she should give up the name of her divorced father. I believe that that is something on which she has a right to insist. She was disentitled in 1988 and in 1994 she was still there begging. That is to throw away a life. The other case involved someone who wished to cease to be a Jehovah's Witness and whose parents would not allow him to continue to live at home if he did so. That is an issue of freedom of conscience.
This is the one place where we have some research on what people do if they are totally disentitled to benefit. It is usually crime, selling drugs or prostitution, and prostitution in both senses. I am not particularly squeamish. However, if there is one thing that one finds more disconcerting than being forced into prostitution it is being forced into prostitution against one's sexual orientation. There are 16 and 17 year-old rent boys who sell unprotected sex because it is more profitable. The free market truly takes some very strange forms. I do not need to go into the medical risks of that practice.
According to the figures produced by the careers service among 16 and 17 year-olds there are 6 per cent. unemployed and 6 per cent. unknown. If one looks at the census validation studies, those are probably underestimates. Large numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds simply disappear. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, knows some of the difficulties presented by the figures. I am extremely grateful to him for the help that he has given in trying to get through them. I believe he appreciates that there are likely to be many more lost, stolen and strayed 16 and 17 year-olds out there than are indicated by the official figures. Young people these days are a scarce resource. If we waste them for two years they are liable to stay wasted. That is something that this country cannot afford. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to raise one other issue that is related to a matter about which my noble friend Lord Russell has spoken. I do not know how many Members of the House are associated with the groups that look after the homeless in this country, particularly in the cities, or who have taken the opportunity to talk to some of those who live in cardboard boxes under the National Theatre and elsewhere. If they do, they will come across another very tragic phenomenon, rather similar to some of those of which my noble friend has just spoken. I refer to young girls and boys who run away from home because of sexual abuse within the family. There has been a substantial increase in the reports of sexual violence and abuse in the family, admittedly largely because it is now more acceptable than hitherto to make these matters public. If one speaks to some of the groups that deal with homeless families, and homeless young people in particular, one finds that this phenomenon is not so small that it can be dismissed. A young girl or boy who is subject to sexual abuse will run away from home. It is no good pretending that they can be forced back home by refusing benefit. That may apply to only a few thousand people, but those people deserve our sympathy and mercy. I should like an assurance from the Minister that cases of this kind will be regarded as falling within the reference to special regulations in the Bill at the present time. Although this is not widely spoken of, it is a real issue. To force these young people back to their families will not help them, their families or, for that matter, their futures.
Lord Inglewood: It will come as no surprise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to hear me say that this amendment seeks to overturn current Government policy, which is to help unemployed young people into training or employment, not to create conditions in which they can sink into benefit dependency. The Government guarantee every young person who wants one a suitable youth training place. That is at the heart of our policy for 16 and 17 year-olds. We are going to spend £669 million on youth training and modem apprenticeships this year in England alone. That is a very significant investment in the future of our young people and in the nation's economy.

675
The guarantee enables young people to focus their efforts on achieving their full potential and develop skills for the nation's economy. Young people should not become dependent on benefit. They need to take every opportunity to get the best possible start in the labour market.
We recognise that there must be exceptions, and we provide for them. First, young people in certain specified vulnerable groups, such as disabled young people, are allowed to claim income support. They will continue to be able to claim income support after the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Secondly, young people in prescribed categories, such as those who have recently left local authority care, will be allowed to claim JSA for a period intended to allow them to overcome their temporary difficulties. That also carries forward existing arrangements. Thirdly, young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. Again, that carries forward existing arrangements. We believe that the Government's youth training guarantee backed up by clear sanctions, safeguards and protection represents a fair and balanced package of measures for young people.
In the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, examples were given of extremely distressing circumstances which I do not believe any of us would for a moment condone or support. But we are talking about benefits and the Jobseekers Bill. It seems to me that many of those examples which were described logically follow from the topic that we are discussing this evening—sexual abuse, for example. I do not believe that it is the right way to tackle this particular problem by saying that it has something to do with the benefits system. The problem there is much wider, and that is the way to try to deal with such problems.
I cannot give exact and specific examples of the extent to which, right to the limits, the definition of "vulnerable groups" falls. However, I should be very surprised if it does not include the kind of people about whom we are speaking. I shall write to the noble Baroness and give her full details of exactly where we stand now, because the plan is simply to roll forward the existing provisions to the future.
In his opening remarks the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter earlier this evening. We have listened but I am not in a position to give any kind of commitment or promise at this stage.
Earl Russell: I shall not attempt to answer that reply in detail. Instead, I shall say what Lord Seebohm said in this Chamber the last time that the Government defended the freezing of child benefit: that is an old cracked record; we have heard it many times before; it is worn out; it is time that we had a new one.
I shall tackle only one point—that of the severe hardship payments, which are intended to plug a gap. The problem is that when people have had to leave home, they cannot wait to go through these procedures.
676
They need food now. So they drift off, often into illegal courses of conduct, and they disappear. That is one reason why that provision does not achieve its desired object.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot give an absolute assurance about the timetable at this time. But, as I promised, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment. If the Minister does not negative me, I shall be encouraged. If he does negative me, I shall go through the Lobby and be very interested to see who does and who does not come with me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 24. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, leave out line 19.
The noble Earl said: This is the first of a series of delegated powers amendments. With this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 28. Both amendments concern training. The first one concerns line 19 on page 3 of the Bill:
"a condition that the claimant must register for training".
A condition that the claimant must register for training may be introduced by regulation. The second suggested change concerns line 26 where it says:
"(4) For the purposes of this section 'training' has such meaning as may be prescribed."
We know all about "Educating Rita" but what we are learning about here is training Humpty-Dumpty. This is the first of a series of probing amendments about the use of delegated powers. I gave the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, a list of five questions that I intended to ask about each of the delegated powers. First, why do the Government want the delegated power to do this by regulation? Secondly, what do the Government intend to do with this power? Thirdly, what else could be done with this power, not necessarily by this Government but by some other government with a quite different outlook in the future? Fourthly, what are the extreme things, the worst things, that could be done under this regulation-making power? Fifthly, how could the House give or withhold its consent?
It would not entirely satisfy me if the Government could persuade me that what they intend to do with the delegated power is entirely reasonable. I would find that reassuring but not totally satisfying. The vires to make regulations are like mines that we lay across the legislative landscape and they may explode at some future date in ways that none of us can now foresee, so I would want reassurance that we are not creating the vires to do something which is particularly dangerous.
I might be persuaded to agree to either of these powers individually. What really worries me—I should like to have some reassurance on this—is their effect in conjunction. There are libertarian objections to making training compulsory. Those objections might not be conclusive but if we can make training compulsory and

677
then we can change the meaning of "training" to mean anything we like, goodness knows what could be done with that.
I accept that at present there is no governmental intention to introduce workfare. I have no intention of starting a scare about that, but the vires exist for some future government to introduce workfare if it chose, without any further legislation. If that were to be introduced I think even those who supported it would agree that it deserved the dignity of primary legislation and serious debate.
I have looked at the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I understand that they intend "training" to have the meaning it has in the Employment and Training Act 1973. If they did that it would not worry me. If they wrote it into the Bill it would make me happy. But why do they want to leave to their successors a power to change the meaning of "training" in entirely arbitrary ways? Do the Government really have such great confidence in the Opposition? I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts that there is no sinister intention behind the Government's present proposals. As explained, our intention is that the definition should incorporate training to be provided for such people under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and that includes youth training and modern apprenticeships. I hope that that will assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in the provision.
We wish to be able to retain flexibility in regard to whatever changes may arise in the future in respect of training programmes. We believe that it is appropriate in the circumstances that, if we wish to link JSA for a certain category to training, we should be able to make quite sure that that definition is both clear and one which, if circumstances change appropriately, can be amended in line with what would be appropriate under future circumstances.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for that answer which is reassuring as far as it goes. The trouble is that it only goes a limited distance. He reassures me that he does not have any sinister intention behind the words at present. But I notice that he omitted to answer the question of what use another government at another time may manage to make of the regulation-making powers. He has not denied that it would be possible to introduce workfare under these provisions. For that matter, he has not denied that it would not be impossible to introduce national service under the provisions. Again, even the strongest advocate of such a proposal would agree that it deserves the dignity of primary legislation.
Lord Inglewood: I do not believe that a definition of training can be broadened to turn it into an instrument for the imposition of workfare, as the word is used in contemporary English. The noble Earl asks what possible use a future government—perhaps a sinister
678
future government—may make of these proposals. I am not in a position to be able to give the noble Earl a categoric response; we do not know. However, taking the argument one stage further; to have the kind of sinister government in the future to which the noble Earl alludes, it would be necessary for that government to have a majority in the other place. If that government had a majority in the other place, there is every likelihood that they may be able to introduce legislation of which people disapprove by virtue of their being a government and therefore by virtue of their majority. The point being made by the noble Earl therefore is not one which in practice will be relevant. If it is possible to introduce some extremely difficult and far-ranging proposition, it will be the result of the decision of the British people in the ballot boxes.
Earl Russell: I accept the point the Minister makes in relation to a future government having a majority in another place. But a future government also may feel that that flexibility permitted them to do things which they would not risk doing with a narrow majority or a crowded legislative timetable.
Ultimately the power must stand or fall by the extent of the vires. Once the vires are there we must take the risk that they will be used. If the Minister has taken legal advice on the point that it would be impossible to introduce workfare, I would be glad to hear about that. But in relation to national service, I am sure that the Minister remembers the phrase "basic training". That could literally, within the ordinary meaning of the words, be introduced under these powers. I feel that one should be extremely careful before one leaves powers of this kind lying around. One ought, at all stages, to assume that something bad may be done with them.
I believe that all governments ex officio should be regarded as untrustworthy, and that includes any government of which one might oneself be a member. The last thing one should ever do is trust oneself with the exercise of power. So I hope that the Minister will not in any way take it personally when I say that any restrictions that they have should be put in, fearing the worst. As King James I put it, "From bad manners good laws". There is a lot in that maxim.
Lord Inglewood: I can confirm to the noble Earl that we have not taken legal advice on the particular point I raised. I shall write to him about it later.
Earl Russell: In that case, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("provided that any registration required by such regulations shall be at one agency only, and that the designated persons are appropriately trained").
The noble Baroness said: Of all the amendments on the Marshalled List today, this one is very simple to read and one does not have to look at the Bill itself because the amendment is quite clear. It is sensibly asking that when people are required to register under the proposed regulations, they should go to one place only to register.

679
Hand in hand with that, the officials whom they see should be trained over the wide range of issues that they will be considering.
For instance, currently young people have to register at the Benefits Agency, with the Careers Service and the Employment Service. The Government have said that they promise that these three bodies will be reduced to a two-stop shop. We hope that the Government will accept this amendment and we cannot see any reason why they should not. If there is a one-stop shop it will be particularly helpful to young people for a number of reasons. It will mean that they can identify the whole range of requirements of the legislation, but also their needs. They will be able to deal with one officer in that one office, whether it is about benefits, the employment position or their job opportunities and the Career Service support that is going to be given to them.
There may well be another beneficial effect that the Minister may not like as much. It may recoup some of the large amount of unclaimed benefits. We hear a great deal about people claiming benefits to which some allege they are not entitled, but there are also a great many people who are entitled to them, but who do not actually draw the benefits because they are not aware of them. This amendment will enable the individual to plug into one office and deal with one official with whom they can identify, although that may not be possible. In addition, there will be the tracking facility for them as regards employment and the benefit position. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: An extremely sensible suggestion has just been made. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept this amendment, perhaps he will come forward with a better drafted one at the next stage.
Lord Inglewood: As I have already explained, it is the Government's intention to ensure that as many young people as possible receive education or training and do not become dependent on benefit. But as we have also debated there are exceptional circumstances in which some 16 and 17 year-olds will have to claim JSA.
It is important that those 16 and 17 year-olds who do claim JSA receive the best possible careers advice and support to help them move quickly off benefit and into training. That is why 16 and 17 year-olds claiming JSA will be required to register with the Careers Service. They are the specialists and the people best placed to ensure 16 and 17 year-olds get all the available advice on training, education and employment with training options.
The JSA is a single benefit. Its introduction will allow us to streamline the arrangements for dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds and to improve the service they receive. As the noble Baroness said, at present, as well as going to the Careers Service, 16 and 17 year-olds have to visit the Benefits Agency as well as the Jobcentre to claim income support. Our intention is that 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to claim JSA and deal with related matters at the Jobcentre. I hope that answers the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although it does not answer
680
my point, as I am sure he accepts. The jobseeker's allowance will be paid to some young people because they are not in work. The Bill is intended to try to get people back into work, which is what we all want. Many young people see employment offices at the moment as giving them any job, whereas there should be a package and a claimant should be told, "You're on JSA until we can get you into some kind of employment which will help you forwards". People should not be offered just any old job; they should be offered a job in which they can progress throughout life. Such development is absolutely crucial.
We need an integrated policy, not a series of separate policies. The noble Lord may feel that it is not possible to do that at the moment. If that is because of bureaucratic or administrative problems, that is one thing; but if it is an ideological problem (because we have completely different approaches) that is another thing. Before I make a decision on the amendment, I would appreciate it if the noble Lord could indicate which of those two attitudes dictated his reply.
Lord Inglewood: As I explained earlier, the key to understanding the jobseeker's allowance is that it is a single benefit. That is the core approach, whatever the category of jobseeker's allowance. Part of the nature of the jobseeker's agreement which we have been debating is to try to establish a plan of action to assist the jobseeker to get into work. That is where the role of the careers service fits in. That is why we believe that it is appropriate that there should be an interface at the Jobcentres as well as at the careers offices.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: Clearly we have a little misunderstanding. I hear what the noble Lord says, and although it does not respond to my point, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 31.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, leave out line 34.
The noble Earl said: This is another delegated powers probing amendment. I should like to ask the same five questions as before. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can indicate that he has a copy of those questions, perhaps I need not repeat them. Does the noble Lord have a copy? If so, I can save some time by not running through them again.
The amendment, deals with the question of allowing the Government by regulation to determine the age-related amount which is applicable. Again, I want to know the usual five things. In particular, as this is a highly contentious issue to which we shall be returning at a later stage, I want to know how this House could give or withhold its consent if the Government changed

681
the amount. As we are still told that Parliament makes the law, I think that that is a question which deserves an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have to hand the questions which the noble Earl sent me, so I am in some difficulty, but perhaps—
Earl Russell: If it would be any help, I can repeat the questions. First, why do the Government want a delegated power? Secondly, what do they want to do with it? Thirdly, what other things could be done with the power by some other government? Fourthly, what are the extreme limits of that power and what are the worst things that it legally creates the vires to do? Fifthly, how can Parliament give or withhold its consent to things done under the power? I am sorry to have assumed that the Minister had a copy of the questions when he did not. All of us have to deal with a lot of papers today.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am still in some difficulty because the amendment in the name of the noble Earl at which I am looking is to delete line 34:
"determining the age-related amount applicable to him".
I had come prepared to explain in some detail why we had come to the conclusion that the JSA for the under 25 year-olds (the 18 to 24 year-old group) should be paid at a lower rate. Therefore I should prefer to take away the noble Earl's questions, consider them and reply to his letter in some detail.
Perhaps I may say, however, that JSA brings together two benefits—unemployment benefit and income support. As I said earlier, it is a well-established feature of income support that young single people receive a lower rate of benefit. Under JSA we shall be adopting for unemployed young people the same treatment as they receive on income support. As I said earlier, the average earnings of the 18 to 24 year-old group is two-thirds of the average for all adults, and if the young person has a family he can claim income-based JSA and obtain the same rate of benefit as any other family.
I did not say this earlier, but the large majority (about 75 per cent.) of income support recipients under 25 do not live independently. Where the claimant does not live at home, he can obtain housing benefit on the same basis as anyone else.
What this group of people needs is help to get into work and out of unemployment. The service has been testing special programmes geared to the needs of young people. National programmes will provide 130,000 places from April 1995. We believe that that is the right approach and make no apology for looking at the wider earnings of young people in that age group and coming to the conclusion that they can have less than those aged 25 or over.
I am not sure whether that is what the noble Earl was wondering when he asked what the Government intend to do with the power and what else could be done. I apologise to him. I was not aware that this was where he was going to attack me with those questions. As there
682
are other parts of the Bill in which these matters come up, I have no doubt that I shall be able to address the various points about which he has written to me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled. I wonder whether there has been a typographical mistake. The amendment refers to omitting line 34, which does not refer to regulations. I wondered whether the noble Earl meant it to refer to line 38 which states:
"shall be determined in accordance with regulations",
or whether there is an issue here that has escaped me. It seems to me that the noble Earl's points and the Minister's reply just passed each other by.
Earl Russell: The best I can do is to beg leave to withdraw my amendment in as good order as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) making prescribed additions to offset the extra costs that are incurred as a direct result of a claimant's disability")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 37. I consider that the amount of the JSA, whether contribution-based or income-based, should be increased to take account of the extra costs a disabled person might face in seeking a job compared with the costs faced by a non-disabled person.
Those extra costs can arise in connection with travel to and from interviews and the jobcentre. Even though a disabled person may be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of the DLA (previously termed the mobility allowance) that may be earmarked for the purchase of a powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair which, as the Committee will know, is not provided by the NHS. Moreover, even if the disabled person has a car, perhaps paid for by the HRM/DLA, or mobility allowance through the Motability scheme, he may be forced to resort to expensive taxis because parking places do not exist near the prospective employer's premises or at the jobcentre. If such facilities do exist, arrangements cannot be made for parking for casual job applicants, or they are being used by able-bodied people.
Blind people may need to be accompanied to interviews and jobcentres. They may also need the services of a reader in searching for advertised jobs. Deaf people may need to invest in equipment to communicate with prospective employers. They may incur extra expense through using the teletype system and they may need to be accompanied to interviews by a signer.
Those are but a few examples of the possible extra costs that disabled people may incur in looking for employment. Extra costs are not suffered by non-disabled jobseekers. As regards employment, the access-to-work scheme could offset all those extra costs but the scheme is not available to help disabled people seeking work.
In Standing Committee on 7th February in the other place, Mr. Roger Evans, when responding to Keith Bradley, stated at col. 253:
"If he is trying to argue that there are specific travel, interview or search costs, I shall go away and think on the matter".
Later at the Report stage, the Minister of State, Miss Widdecombe, responding to Mr. Bradley, stated:
"I reassure him that the Employment Service can fund the costs of travel to interview, the cost of escorts to and from interview, which are important for people with disabilities, the cost of providing communications for the deaf at interview and other similar measures".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/95; col. 374.]
I have not given my noble friend notice of the following questions. If he cannot answer them tonight, perhaps he will write to me. Who is right? Exactly what help is available? Does it cover such equipment as is covered in the access-to-work scheme? Under what conditions is help offered? Are they the same as those for access-to-work? Is all the appropriate help that is available under access-to-work also available for disabled people who are seeking work on exactly the same terms? How does a disabled person go about securing help when seeking work? Is the help available immediately it is requested or, as with access-to-work, does it take several weeks for the application to be investigated and agreed? I beg to move.
Lord Carter: We on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment. During many years and in respect of many Bills we have discussed the extra costs that are faced by disabled people. Obviously that applies to seeking work. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to access-to-work and I believe that when we deal with the disability Bill we shall have many interesting discussions on the relationship between access-to-work and the measures proposed in that Bill.
Without recognition of the extra cost faced by disabled people in their search for work, specifically in meeting the conditions of entitlement to benefit, they could be unfairly penalised through no fault of their own. I understand that in discussion in another place those issues were recognised. I hope that the Government will give the assurances for which the noble Lord has asked.
Earl Russell: We too support the amendment. I shall not repeat the argument because the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put it so well. I am happy to say that he spoke for both of us.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments seek to make additional payments in both contribution-based and income-based jobseeker's allowance to people who incur costs as a direct result of their disabilities. In the case of contribution-based JSA, the result would be to cut across the long-standing principle on which contributory benefits for the unemployed are based.
Those who have worked and paid contributions will be able to receive contribution-based JSA for six months irrespective of their means. The principle of contributory benefit is that it is, basically, a flat-rate income-replacement benefit, paid irrespective of other personal circumstances. Additional help for those with
684
disabilities is available elsewhere in the benefit system, including income-based jobseeker's allowance and disability living allowance which can be paid on top of contributory benefit.
Income-based JSA will closely follow income support rules, and I can assure my noble friend that it will include provision for appropriate premia to be paid to disabled people in addition to the personal allowance. The disability premium in income support recognises increased living costs of the disabled and long-term sick for items such as extra heating, special diets, more expensive travel, and laundry costs.
We do not accept, therefore, that there is a case for a further additional payment to unemployed people who are looking for work. We believe the financial resources available are better used in measures which will actually help disabled people into jobs. I shall go through some of the help available. As I mentioned earlier today, the Employment Service will be spending an extra £71 million over the first three years following the introduction of incapacity benefit to direct just that kind of special help at disabled people.
I should say to my noble friend that there is no evidence that unemployed disabled people attending any of the Employment Service programmes aimed at helping with jobsearch face additional expenditure costs to enable them to attend or participate fully. Fares are paid to enable people to attend such courses. While there is an upper limit which is sufficient for most people, no limit is imposed on disabled people. The full cost is met for disabled people, including parking fees and taxi fares. People attending Employment Service courses such as restart courses, job review workshop and other ES provisions will be able to receive wide-ranging assistance which includes a personal reader service for visually impaired people and signers for people with hearing problems. For those with physical disabilities, help is given by furnishing access to the premises of programme providers by providing, for example, ramps or other equipment. In 1995–1996, £100,000 has been set aside for that.
The access-to-work scheme can provide a similar range of help for people attending interviews or starting work. Therefore, it is available to all people who may need to claim. It can provide up to £21,000 to individuals over a period of five years, although most will need much less than that. In addition targeted advice is provided for options available to claimants through the disability employment adviser.
I hope that my explanation of the assistance available answers my noble friend's questions. I appreciate that he asked me quite a number of questions. I shall read what he said and make sure that I have answered them all. If I have not answered any of his questions, I shall write to him. I hope that he will understand the point which I make; namely, that help is available through the special premia which exist for all disabled people. It is available also, through the Employment Service, for those seeking jobs who have the problems that I mentioned in the examples which I gave.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend started by giving me the impression that he was going to disappoint me, but

685
he ended up by rather encouraging me, which is always a good sign. I like to be encouraged. I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions from my noble friend. I shall read what he has said with the greatest interest. However, I reserve the right to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The earnings disregard in respect of part-time earnings shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that I may hang onto the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and provoke the good humour of the Minister. We may, perhaps, end the evening on a bright note. However, I am not sure about that. It is a matter of money and that is something which it is always very difficult to persuade the Government to come forward with.
The proposed provision is quite straightforward. It would enable the disregard in respect of part-time earnings to be index linked. Of course, the disregard is really a means of providing a bridge to enable the individual to go from being unemployed to actually getting back into employment. Indeed, it would ease the situation and would act in a way which would not discourage people from taking part-time work which, eventually, could also lead to full-time employment.
We suggest that it not only makes sense to up-rate the disregard annually, but that it is also the honest thing to do. If the Government have reached the view that this is the level to set when the Bill becomes law, it makes sense to maintain that relative value. Of course, I am aware that the unemployment benefit disregard itself has not been up-rated since about 1982. We certainly would not want to see that situation continuing under the Bill when it is enacted.
There are a number of benefits that are not up-rated and that, too, has encouraged us to table the amendment so that it would be on the face of the Bill. That would mean that it would not be discretionary and that it would require an annual review of the level of disregard so as to provide some measure of assurance of a retention of the value of the disregard year on year. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I mentioned earlier this evening, the jobseeker's allowance will have common rules for the contribution-based and income-based claimants. The rules applying in unemployment benefit are complex and outdated relating to the daily benefit paid in respect of six days a week. We are aligning the rules with those of income support and applying an earnings disregard which, for most single claimants, will be £5 a week.
The level of the disregard is designed to strike a balance between providing an incentive to do some work without creating a disincentive to take up full-time work. Part-time work, supplemented by JSA, cannot be
686
an acceptable long-term option. We believe that across-the-board increases can act as a disincentive to move off benefit and into more substantial work.
It has never been thought right to up-rate earnings disregard automatically. We prefer to concentrate on maintaining and, wherever possible, improving overall benefit levels rather than increasing the amount of the earnings disregard, which can only benefit those who are able to work part-time. Increasing disregards currently across income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit by only £1 a week would cost in the region of £25 million a year. Therefore, looking at increasing disregards is not exactly a costless option.
One has to look at what we are doing in JSA as a package. We believe that it is important to introduce new incentives for people to take up, or stay in, part-time work. As I have already mentioned, we shall be doing that not by increasing the disregards by small amounts each year but by giving a new joint £10 disregard for couples through the back-to-work bonus and through the increase in the partner's hours rule from 16 to 24 hours, which we discussed earlier.
We believe that that is the right way to go about such issues and not in fact to give the right of reviewing annually the earnings disregard which currently stands, as I said, at £5. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the noble Baroness, in that she has not managed to get such a satisfactory answer on this occasion as that received by my noble friend for his amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: As a colleague has just said, "What's new!" I am disappointed but not surprised in my disappointment. I feel that it is all of matter of penny pinching. Indeed, £5 is not a great deal of money. Perhaps we should have tried to get the whole lot index linked. However, we thought that we would have a go on this one and that the Minister might see sense. If it is worth £5 today as a disregard to act as an incentive—or not to be a disincentive—for people to go into work, then that kind of logic should follow through year on year; otherwise it does not have a logical base. I hear what the Minister says. With the permission of the Committee, I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) In the case of a claimant residing with his spouse or contributing to the maintenance of his spouse, there shall be added the amount specified in Schedule 4, Part IV, column 3 of the Benefits Act (adult dependant's allowance).").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the adult dependence allowance. This amendment seeks to protect the status quo. What is the current situation? At the moment someone who qualifies by virtue of National Insurance contributions and the work test, receives unemployment benefit for 12 months, which for him—let us assume he is the main earner—is £45.45, and for her is £28.05. In other words, as a couple, they receive £73.50 based on the claimant's record. Any savings, any redundancy payment, or her earnings do

687
not affect this couple's allowance. It is a benefit as of right paid for by him, covering them both. It is a contributory benefit.
Under JSA such a couple are penalised not once, not twice, but three times over. We think this extraordinarily harsh. First, the contributory benefit is cut from 12 months to six months; thereafter it is means tested. That is bad enough but, secondly—this relates very much to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, earlier this evening—that six months contributory JSA does not include an allowance for a spouse. It is simply in other words a non-means-tested benefit of £45 for the claimant; it is a personal allowance, not a couple or family allowance, as it was under unemployment benefit. If the claimant claims what he is currently entitled to—the adult dependence allowance—he promptly moves from a contributory to a means-tested benefit on day one, without even six months on the contributory benefit for which his National Insurance was designed to pay.
He has been robbed twice. If he does not claim for her, his benefit is cut from 12 months back to six months; it is cut back from 12 months to nothing, in terms of a contributory benefit, if he does claim for her. As soon as he claims for her, and therefore goes onto a means-tested benefit, he is then penalised a third time in terms of any modest savings he may have had. He loses £1 in benefit for every £250 he has in capital over the £3,000 rule, and loses all benefit if he has savings over £8,000. Those savings may have been accumulated by weekly or monthly savings but they may be the result of a redundancy payment of, say, £10,000 which will have to be exhausted before they get means-tested benefit. Or the savings may have resulted from an injury compensation or an industrial accident compensation and that money will not be used as compensation, as was intended, but as a living allowance before he can claim the benefit they were entitled to under National Insurance rules.
In other words, he is offered the Faustian choice of, "Maintain your wife or maintain your savings, but you cannot do both". Is that what the Government really intend? Is not that an attack on the family, on the one hand, and on the principle of thrift and savings on the other? For the Government to manage both in one Bill is pretty good. The Government expect to make some £220 million savings in a full year by moving from 12 months to six months contributory benefit; and of that, scrapping the adult dependence allowance will save £20 million. The Government themselves estimate that some 5,000 people will be pushed onto means-tested benefits, thus increasing their poverty trap.
So what have we? We have a Bill that not only savages the contributory principle, reducing it from 12 months to six months, even though National Insurance payments, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy mentioned, have recently been raised by 10 per cent. bringing in £2.2 billion to the Treasury, but also attacks the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to earlier on; namely, that social security benefits are household or family benefits. Yet the Government in their usual Janus-faced way casuistically are seeking to have it both ways. His contributory
688
benefit does not cover her, but if she is working her earnings are expected to cover him and he loses benefit pound for pound. Which is it that the Government will have? His contributory benefit does not cover her, it belongs exclusively to him. The moment she works, her earnings are expected to cover them both and he loses benefit. In other words, social security benefits cover them both when it saves the Government money but do not cover them both when it costs the Government money. So much for a Government of insurance, savings and the family. The Government's Bill attacks all three. The Government have made the JSA test harsher. They have then proceeded to cut the value of the benefit, just as they have with incapacity benefit.
We could at least mitigate some of the deep unfairness and unpleasantness of the Bill if the Committee were minded to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The proposed amendment seeks to introduce into the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance an increase in respect of adult dependants. We do not accept that it is necessary to introduce such payments.
Contribution-based JSA is an entitlement built up by an individual work record and will be paid as a personal benefit which does not take into account the claimant's family circumstances. No adult dependency increase will be paid. On the other hand, no account will be taken of a partner's earnings.
We recognise the anxieties of the noble Baroness about provisions for claimants who have dependants. However, claimants with partners will be able to claim income-related jobseeker's allowance. Indeed, under existing rules, the great majority of unemployment benefit beneficiaries receiving an adult dependency increase already also receive income support. The increase in unemployment benefit is already dependent on the partner's circumstances. It is currently payable only if the partner's earnings are less than the extra amount of benefit.
I accept that the removal of the adult dependency increase from the contributions benefit means the income test will be applied to more people earlier. We estimate, and the noble Baroness herself mentioned, that at any one time 5,000 people will be entitled to income-related jobseeker's allowance as a result of there being no adult dependency increase in the contributory element. However, that is in line with the aim of targeting help through the benefits system at those who need it.
We accept that it would be unfair to remove the adult dependency increase from the benefit of those who are receiving it when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced. Therefore, people receiving adult dependency increases when the allowance is introduced will be protected and may continue to receive the increase for the balance of their entitlement.
I do not suppose that I have persuaded the noble Baroness of the good sense of what we are doing. I noticed that a general attack was made on most of the Bill, but I am awaiting any indication that the party opposite might pledge, between now and the next

689
election, that if it were elected it would restore the six months to 12 months. I understand that there was total silence on that subject in the other place.
On the subject we are discussing with this amendment, I explained why we came to the conclusion we did. I hope that, having listened to my explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister did not offer an explanation; he offered a description. That is not the same thing at all. He described what the Government intend to do, but he neither explained, justified or excused it. He said that somebody who has paid national insurance for a contributory benefit based on the family principle that that benefit supports both claimant and partner will immediately come off that contributory benefit if he seeks to claim the benefit for his partner and will move to means-tested benefit. In other words, anybody who seeks to claim for their partner is not entitled to any contributory benefit, despite having paid national insurance contributions for that purpose.
If that is not an attack on the family and on savings and the principle of insurance I do not know what is. It is too late at night to pursue the issue further, but it is one of the more shabby and despicable elements of a despicable Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 2, after ("amounts") insert (", which shall include a premium for lone parents,").
The noble Earl said: I hope that we may be able to dispose of this amendment quickly.
The amendment is moved in order to ask the Minister for an assurance for which I asked him at Second Reading. Again because of the immense press of paper that these matters produce, I did not receive an answer. I asked him about a story which appeared in the Independent just before Second Reading that the Government intended to withdraw the premium for lone parents. I invite the Minister to tell me that that is not true. I am perfectly ready to accept such an assurance if he does, and I would be much relieved. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that there is any need for this amendment. The income-based jobseeker's allowance will closely follow the income support rules and will include provision for appropriate premia to be paid, including to lone parents and families, in addition to the personal allowance. This ensures that lone parents who wish to look for work will be able to claim JSA and that their benefit will be no less than they would have received on income support.
As we made clear in the JSA White Paper, lone parents will have a choice whether to register for work or claim income support. But we will support and promote measures that encourage lone parents into work. There will be a £15 earning disregard for lone parents in JSA, as in income support, recognising the particular difficulties faced by lone parents in returning
690
to work. Our new back-to-work bonus, together with the child-care disregard that we have already introduced in family credit, provide positive help to lone parents who wish to move into more substantive work.
The noble Earl referred to a newspaper report. As it appeared some weeks ago, if I have seen it I have probably forgotten it. Perhaps I may assure him that there is no campaign against lone parents. We recognise that many do an excellent job bringing up their children, often in difficult circumstances. But we have to make sure that, while supporting children of lone parents, we also give a fair deal to couples with children, and that married couples are not disadvantaged compared with others from a financial point of view. We need to look at this. We also believe that it would be socially irresponsible not to look at some of the more general problems caused by lone parents.
It is not the easiest of circumstances, especially in the sub-group that I define as unmarried mothers, as opposed to the other sub-groups of lone parents who may be divorced or, happily less frequently nowadays, widowed. There is a lot of evidence that for a young teenage girl to get pregnant and become an unmarried mother is not the best situation for her or her child. Perhaps on another day we may have an interesting debate about what responsibilities we have as a society, dare I say, to try to prevent that happening. If it does happen, one hopes that there are benefits in place to help lone parents, whether unmarried or of any other kind.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has said everything that I hoped he would say. I would be delighted to withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I say only the following. If he finds a way of preventing people from becoming unmarried mothers he will achieve something that has eluded every ruler since Adam.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (12).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 38 is genuinely a delegated power amendment. It relates to subsection (12) in Clause 4:
"Regulations under subsection (5) may provide that, in prescribed cases, an applicable amount is to be nil".
Put another way, someone may be disentitled to benefit.
I have my usual five questions. I have read the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It says that this power will be used for people in religious orders and other small groups. People in religious orders normally cannot be available for work. If they keep their rule they cannot actively seek work. I do not see why this clause is needed to disentitle them. But even if this is the only intention, is it not the case that the vires of the clause will enable any future government to disentitle any group of people at any time? If so, how will the House have an opportunity to withhold its consent? There may be some cases where benefit is withdrawn and this House as a whole, perhaps on an all-party basis, may passionately

691
want to withhold its consent. If we vote through these vires, how can that be done? While thought is being given to that, we might think about why the vires needed to be so wide. I simply do not see it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, this amendment would remove our power to award a nil applicable amount of jobseeker's allowance to people in prescribed circumstances. The power will be used to ensure that small groups cannot receive jobseeker's allowance where it would not be appropriate for them to do so. The noble Earl mentioned people in religious orders. That indeed would be one small group; so would prisoners; so would certain people coming from abroad who come here on the basis that they will not in fact be a burden on the state in any way; and, at the risk, at this late hour, of rejoining a battle that we had much earlier in the day, so would those not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
The power to prescribe a nil rate of benefit is longstanding and pre-dates income support. We believe that it would be inappropriate to specify in primary legislation the special very small categories which it excludes. The power to prescribe in secondary legislation provides a more flexible and sensible mechanism whereby regulations can provide in certain circumstances that a person is or is not to have access to benefit.
The noble Earl asked me whether we could not just give a nil amount to anyone and perhaps extend the groups. The power enables us to take out particular groups. It could not be used to take out the generality of claimants because quite clearly they could not be defined as a group as in this clause. I hope that that reassures him.
In very general terms, I am afraid that one can never give a guarantee that a future government will not behave with regulated powers in a way of which the noble Earl, or even myself, does not approve. But equally one cannot guarantee that they will not behave with primary legislation in ways of which we do not approve. Certainly, if a government tried to put through material of which the other place did not approve, that Chamber could prevent that happening.
This Chamber has conventions, but life can be made a little more difficult for government if we do not try to take on board deep-seated problems. With the kind of doomsday scenario so beloved of the noble Earl in this matter, I think that some of the conventions might not necessarily be held to, not if we are talking about a doomsday scenario with the end of the world as we know it coming about because an iniquitous government is doing quite iniquitous things with the regulations, right, left and centre.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Do I rightly understand what the Minister is saying? In all the events of last year, the official Opposition, even when extremely unhappy in some situations, carefully abided by the well established conventions that govern this Chamber. Is the Minister now saying that the moment that they come on to these Benches and go into opposition, they will not seek to respect such conventions? Is that what the Minister is saying? I think
692
that perhaps he might first seek the guidance of the Leader of the House before he seeks to undermine them. The Leader himself has given an assurance to that effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness should not jump up quite so quickly on these matters. Of course, that is not what I say. I am talking about a doomsday scenario which the noble Earl envisages. The possibility of the party opposite coming to these Benches may be unfortunate—I must have misheard; I thought that I heard the word "unlikely"—but I should not have considered for a moment the doomsday scenario. I believe that succeeding governments would not in fact abuse the powers that they are given under secondary legislation in quite the way in which the noble Earl keeps trying to frighten us into believing might happen some day in the future. I believe—dare I say it?—that even Labour governments are responsible on these matters and have been in the past. I am not old enough to remember whether Liberal governments were responsible enough.
Earl Russell: I think the Minister was cutting a corner by calling abuse of powers "doomsday". If that were doomsday I would be very surprised if any of us would be alive now. Excessive use of powers happens all the time. I think we need to clarify this just a little more. It seems to me the extent of the vires hangs on the definition of a group. Let me ask the Minister about two specific examples. Would that clause serve to give vires to regulations to disentitle people under Clause 21 or to disentitle Welshmen? If it did give those vires, and they were to be used, what could we do about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am glad the noble Earl did not want to disentitle Scotsmen: he chose more wisely than that. I am not a lawyer, which means that my advice comes free. I think I will have to put in a caveat about it and say that I would be very surprised if a lawyer could be found who would define groups quite as widely as the noble Earl is inviting me to think they might be able to do. I will certainly check that, because I understand the point he makes, although in the case of the Welshman he perhaps makes it in a rather frivolous way.
My own view would be, because this has been in legislation for some time and is not new, that the kind of groups that have been taken into legislation by this means have been very small and easily defined as self-contained groups. Of course I will check, as I am invited to do, what the lawyers say, but I really think that the wider groups that the noble Earl is suggesting would not be encompassed by the vires.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to intervene so late, but I am a little concerned about the Minister's descriptions. As I understand it, we are talking about the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and the applicable amount. In his initial remarks he talked about people who might have come from abroad and were trying to claim habitual residence in this country, but did not have it. Almost by definition, these people will not have been paying contributions and therefore do not come under the scope of it.

693
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned groups. I would change that slightly and pick out "prescribed cases", which is what is written on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether we might get an assurance from the Minister that such prescribed cases would never apply to demonstrators, for example, who might be on a jobseeker's allowance and be demonstrating perhaps against some actions of this Government - perhaps in Brightlingsea, demonstrating against the export of live animals. Would the Minister give an assurance that that type of case would never be brought within the scope of this particular regulation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, even at this late hour, is sufficiently awake to notice that people from abroad would not in fact be eligible for the JSA because they would not have a contribution base at all. Perhaps I was slightly short-circuiting the argument. The four examples I gave, which included certain people from abroad, showed how the powers are used on income support to award a nil applicable amount, and the power is used to prescribe these groups in income support. I was simply saying that these were examples of groups that we might be looking at defining when we move across to JSA.
On the wider question - I am not entirely sure what it was other than that: it concerned whether I could guarantee - I am not sure whether we get back to the Welshmen—that the wider groups would not be prescribed.
I cannot go further than to give the answer to the noble Lord that these powers have existed for a long time. We are taking them forward from previous
694
decisions. They could not be used for very wide groups, though I have promised to check on the wide groups mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are talking in the future about using this for income-based jobseeker's allowance. I will be checking the powers I mentioned, but I do not believe that they can be used to draw in very wide groups. That would be an abuse. I am not sure what the Latin tag would be, but I am sure that there is one and that the courts would have something to say if Parliament did not.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for offering to check. I look forward to hearing the results of his checking and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duration of a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Natural Resources Institute
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  County Hall
  County Hall
  Vauxhall Cross
  Vauxhall Cross
  Child Support Bill 1995
  Child Support Bill 1995
  Child Support Act 1991
  Child Support Act 1991
  Lloyd's: Tax Revenue and Repayments
  Lloyd's: Tax Revenue and Repayments
  Drugs from EU Countries as a Proportion of Seizures
  Drugs from EU Countries as a Proportion of Seizures
  Irish Box: Protection of British Fishing Vessels
  Irish Box: Protection of British Fishing Vessels
  Vocational Qualifications in Schools GEST Funding
  Vocational Qualifications in Schools GEST Funding
  Styal Prison: Prisoners' Fresh Milk Allowance
  Styal Prison: Prisoners' Fresh Milk Allowance
  Garment Production by Prisoners: Payments to Prison Service
  Garment Production by Prisoners: Payments to Prison Service
  MoD Married Quarters Estate
  MoD Married Quarters Estate