Sitting of 25 April 1995

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

    Funding Agency for Schools
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the relationship between the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. [19168]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Funding Agency for Schools now has shared or sole planning responsibility for the supply of school places in 50 local education authorities. It also has regular contact with LEAs about the funding of grant-maintained schools. In my experience, those relationships are generally constructive.
    Mr. Key: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liberal Democrat-controlled Wiltshire county council told his Department that it had a clear mandate and the agreement of heads to take money out of school budgets when neither of those claims was true? Does the FAS have powers to investigate such deception?
    Mr. Squire: I know that my hon. Friend has corresponded with the FAS about this matter. I understand that the GM schools were initially consulted about the proposal to which he refers but that they did not respond as a result of a misunderstanding about the document that they were sent. From the evidence that I have so far received, it does not appear that the LEA intended any deception. In the event, as my hon. Friend knows, the proposal to which the GM schools eventually took great exception was at variance with the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was accordingly modified by her before it was approved, and a ceiling of 0.5 per cent. was imposed on the percentage of the general schools budget.
    Mr. Dafis: As the grant-maintained schools movement in Wales has run entirely into the sand, despite the constraints on local education funding and the enticements to schools to become grant-maintained, does the Minister agree that there is now no reason to establish a schools funding agency for Wales?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to tempt me down the highways and byways of the Principality. However, if the energy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is as great as I know it is from having worked with him I am sure that
    644
    he will draw inspiration from, for instance, the fact that, last month alone, eight out of 10 ballots in England resulted in a yes vote to become grant-maintained.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I know that it is extremely difficult to obtain a straight answer to a straight question from the Government on education, but the relationship between LEAs and the FAS depends on the number of grant-maintained schools in a given part of the country.
    Given all the Government splits—on nursery education or on funding—will the Minister give a straight answer to the rumours that are circulating in Conservative newspapers that the Government intend to make grant-maintained status compulsory for all schools after the next general election: yes or no?
    Mr. Squire: The whole House enjoyed that one. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, as he has been told many times from the Dispatch Box, that we have no plans to make such a change.
    I could not let slip the small side comment that the House heard—something to the effect that the Government were split on education. I say only that, if all Opposition Members who had enjoyed a privileged education, who had sent their children to a privileged education or who simply enjoyed the benefits of grant-maintained status had instructed their councillors and activists throughout the country not to campaign so hard against GM status, the figures would be even better than those that I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) a moment ago.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers who behave like yobboes and hooligans in public, whether they are employed by GM schools or local authority schools, are likely to be unsatisfactory in professional terms? From experience, I know that often they are the people who do least in the classroom and elsewhere in the school.
    Will my hon. Friend give the House and the country a guarantee that people who behave unsatisfactorily in professional terms in schools will be properly disciplined, however they behave in public?
    Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend knows from his wide experience, those are matters for governing bodies. I doubt whether many governors across the country would have been other than appalled at some of the scenes at the National Union of Teachers' conference, which did no service to the union. There is no place in the classroom for politics; what teachers do in their spare time must be a matter for them. The incident did not assist in the projection of teaching as the honourable and proper profession that we know it to be.

    Teachers' Pay and Conditions
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met teachers or their representatives to discuss pay and conditions; and if she will make a statement. [19169]
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I discussed pay and conditions with representatives of each of the main professional teacher

    645
    associations at meetings held in March. At the end of March, I announced my acceptance of the independent review body's recommendations.
    Ms Quin: Does the Secretary of State realise that vague promises about possible jam tomorrow are simply not good enough and that parental support for teachers and for a better education service remains strong? What will she do, here and now, to tackle the problems of class sizes and to ensure that the teachers' pay award is fully and properly funded?
    Mrs. Shephard: Each year local authorities say that funding is insufficient. The settlement is manageable, although it is tough and has a variable impact across the country. The vast majority of local authorities have managed to fund the teachers' pay award in full, many of which are funding other aspects of education in addition. There is no accumulated evidence to link class size with attainment. Class sizes have edged up over the past couple of years and, I am glad to say, standards have risen a great deal.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my right lion. Friend aware that Northumberland county council has cut £800,000 from its schools budget amid a well-orchestrated campaign to convince parents that it is the Government's fault? Does he realise that the county council decided, at the same time, to spend £700,000 a year funding road races? Furthermore, a few days ago it decided to award county councillors higher allowances—it will spend a further £400,000 a year on allowances, including a 260 per cent. increase in the basic allowance. Does that not show that Labour local authorities are more concerned with propaganda than with educating children?
    Mrs. Shephard: It seems extraordinary that a local authority should place greater emphasis on councillors' allowances than on spending in the classroom. That merely goes to prove what we have been saying all along—that the vast majority of authorities are able to identify their priorities and protect front-line services. What a pity it is that Northumberland is not prepared to do so.
    Dr. Marek: In the light of the right hon. Lady's statement about class sizes, will she tell us why class sizes in public schools are much lower than in state schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members so frequently raise the subject of independent education. I should have thought that they might be embarrassed that so many of their colleagues are in the awkward position of wanting to exercise choice for their own children while opposing it for other people's. Conservatives have no such difficulty: we believe in choice, diversity and excellence, and we have the added advantage of practising what we preach.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge? Will he therefore make it clear to teachers that those who argue the case for selective strikes or who seek to introduce a rota under which children are sent home will damage not just the children's education but teachers' standing in the eyes of parents?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, industrial action by teachers, whatever form it takes, can only damage children,
    646
    children's education and our schools. It will certainly infuriate parents and it will yet again harm teachers' professional reputations, which had begun to recover after the regrettable industrial action of the mid-1980s.

    Teaching Posts
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the number of teachers' posts that will be cut in the current financial year. [19170]
    Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend has not made any such estimates.
    Mr. Ainger: I am extremely surprised by that answer because in a letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the Secretary of State for Education predicted that a teachers' pay award of between 2 and 3 per cent. would be the resource equivalent of the loss of between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs. She went on to say that that would mean a tightening of pupil-teacher ratios and, to use her words, class sizes would "shoot up". Was she right then, or is the recent research published by the University of Manchester in The Times Educational Supplement, which predicted teacher job losses of 14,000 this year, more accurate?
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers have never commented and will never comment on allegedly leaked documents.
    On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, on reflection he will understand why, with decisions lying with some 109 local education authorities—some of which, certainly the Conservative-controlled ones, have sought to protect and enhance education while others have not done so—there is a wide variation in any such prediction. When one includes in that equation the 24,000 separate governing bodies, it is obvious that making predictions will be difficult.
    The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that the Manchester university survey was conducted in January and February, before any school knew what its budget would be for the forthcoming year. If one invites people to assume the worst from a position of temporary ignorance, they will no doubt do so.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that 776 schools in Lancashire employ 12,300 teachers to educate 217,000 children? That gives a ratio of 17.64:1, yet when a constituent of mine rang county hall and asked how many teachers were teaching classes of over 30 he was told that three quarters were doing so. He then commented acidly to county hall that that means that between 3,000 and 5,000 teachers are doing absolutely nothing at all.
    Mr. Squire: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has put her finger on a very important point. The whole House, and certainly I as a Minister, awaits with interest the next instalment, when we shall hear Lancashire education authority's explanation for that astounding disparity.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister personally believe that over the next 12 months teaching posts will be axed and class sizes will rise, and does he believe that rather than attacking local government bureaucracy it would be more appropriate to look at central Government

    647
    bureaucracy in education? Does he acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in the administrative costs of quangos from £3 million to £98 million and a significant increase in the cost of departmental publications? Does he accept that, with all that going on, central DFE administrative expenditure has also risen?
    Mr. Squire: There was a lot of fluff in that question. I am not sure what it adds up to, but I agree that it is correct for Government to look to control their administration, which we certainly do and will continue to do. The hon. Gentleman glosses over not a few Liberal Democrat councils that have deliberately chosen to maintain staffing at county hall or town hall and put teachers' jobs at risk. As for predictions about teachers, I can only say to the hon. Member that over a year ago we heard similar stories about chaos and calamity, yet the net result has been that 1,000 extra teachers have been employed.

    Further and Higher Education
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to broaden the education base for sixth formers, and others, currently taking A-levels for entry to university; and if she will make a statement. [19171]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have asked Sir Ron Dearing to review the qualifications framework to see whether there is scope to achieve greater coherence and breadth of study post-16 without compromising standards.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. With one in three students going into further and higher education, which is a huge contrast to the appalling record of the Opposition under whom fewer than one in eight did so, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a broader-based curriculum for those studying for A-level and planning to enter university? Does she agree that we need more articulate engineers and more numerate arts graduates and—dare I say it?—Members of Parliament?
    Mrs. Shephard: I expect that my hon. Friend will dare to say it. I know that he has taken a particular interest in the range of courses available to 16 to 19-year-olds. The new qualifications framework offers the opportunity to mix and match qualifications—A-levels, AS levels, general national vocational qualifications and so on—so that learning programmes can be suited to individual needs. However, we want Sir Ron Dearing to advise on what more we can do to extend the benefits of that framework to make it easier for young people to mix and match so that they will satisfy the needs of admission tutors and employers or be fitted for further training, but, of course, always without compromising standards.
    Mr. Gunnell: What study has the Secretary of State made of the international baccalaureate, especially two aspects of it that relate directly to this question—the fact that more subjects are studied and that studies are undertaken at two different academic levels, with half the subjects being taken at a higher level than the other half?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of the nature of the international baccalaureate and of its popularity in certain quarters. There are those who say that the standard A-level course is too narrow but, of course, it is open to young people to enhance A-levels with AS levels or
    648
    GNVQs. We want Sir Ron to look at ways to extend the benefits of mixing qualifications. I am sure that he will take into account the lessons of the baccalaureate, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will draw its advantages to Sir Ron's attention, which he is most welcome to do.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of some public concern that public examinations are not as rigorous as they used to be? What assurance can she give that not only will the A-level remain the gold standard in the education system but that other public examinations, especially GCSEs, will be toughened to ensure that people are tested on what they should be tested on and that we are not aiming simply for large numbers of examination passes?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could reassure my hon. Friend immediately. We certainly have no intention of scrapping A-levels. GCSE A-level standards are of paramount importance and have to be protected. A-levels have been tried and tested and are internationally respected, but a number of questions have to be tackled in Sir Ron's review. One is the 26 per cent. drop-out rate among A-level students. Clearly, that must be examined because it is a waste of young people and resources. Sir Ron will also examine the standard of all the qualifications that have already been studied by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and Ofsted, and the effect of increasing modularisation. Given Sir Ron Dearing's reputation, I do not think that my hon. Friend need have any fear.

    Further Education Funding Council (Grants)
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conditions attach to the release of £50 million grant withheld from the Further Education Funding Council for 1995–96. [19173]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Grant will be released to the council as colleges certify their commitment that all contracts entered into with lecturers during 1995–96 will be as flexible as their contracts signed with newly appointed lecturers last year.
    Mr. Burden: Is not the reality that the Government are using cash penalties to force college managements to impose on their staff the conditions that the Government want? Does not that make nonsense of the Government's claim of flexibility, and does not the Minister realise that it is undermining industrial relations, prolonging the dispute in places such as Birmingham and doing nothing to improve relations between college managements and their staff?
    Mr. Boswell: The Government and the taxpayer have a very strong interest in flexibility and efficiency in the delivery of the further education system, expenditure on which runs to nearly £3 billion of public money and which has targeted an increase of 25 per cent. in student enrolment in a short period. It is imperative that that is delivered in general. The Government have no intention of intervening in the day-to-day or detailed negotiations that take place between individual colleges or, indeed, the colleges employers forum and the respective unions. We said that we would welcome the opportunity for those parties to come together. I have today written to the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and

    649
    Lecturers commending him on his readiness to take his union into discussions at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service with the colleges employers forum. I hope that the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education will follow suit.

    English Language
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the aims of her campaign to promote the English language. [19174]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Raising standards in English has been at the heart of our education reforms.
    Mr. Hawkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Does she agree that, in the interests of children, parents and employers, it is absolutely essential for children to learn to use plain, correct and effective English? Is not one of the great problems with the socialist ideas in education peddled since the 1960s that employers complain that those leaving state education after 11 years are unable to use their own language properly?
    Mrs. Shephard: Indeed, it is very important that the revised national curriculum puts greater emphasis on the teaching of written and spoken standard English, on grammar, spelling, punctuation and the need for correct English across the curriculum. It is a great sadness that Opposition Members chose to vote against the national curriculum, means of testing it and independent inspections.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State look specifically at management-speak in education, where better class sizes has come to mean more pupils and fewer teachers? Is not that a perversion of what parents want?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's use of English was entirely correct, but you, Madam Speaker, are in charge of such matters. I have already made my views on class size perfectly clear. Many variables affect how teachers perform in classes of different size, but there is no accumulated research evidence to link class size and attainment.
    Mr. McLoughlin: When my right hon. Friend looks at the promotion of the English language, will she consider the video that has been released by her Department to commemorate VE day and VJ day? Is she not concerned about some of the criticism levelled at the video by a certain newspaper, or is she satisfied that it will ensure that the right message reaches all our children throughout the country?
    Mrs. Shephard: The point of the videos and the packs is to help pupils understand the significance of VE and VJ commemorations. They will run alongside the national curriculum. For the sake of reassurance, I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has examined the packs in detail, was involved in monitoring them and is delighted with them. Given his relationship to Sir Winston Churchill, the House can also be reassured.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met local authority associations to discuss the funding of teachers' pay. [19175]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I discussed the funding of the 1995–96 school teachers' pay award at a meeting with representatives of the National Employers' Organisation for School Teachers on Monday 13 March.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the Secretary of State understand the frustration of teachers throughout the country at the Government's refusal to fund the teachers' pay review and at their phoney explanations for that refusal? She knows that surplus funds are not evenly distributed or available for that purpose. She knows that LEAs such as mine in Staffordshire have taken effective action to remove surplus places. She knows the damage that the refusal to fund the settlement will do in terms of larger class sizes, fewer resources and lower standards. Why does she not fund it? Is not the answer that her Government neither care nor want to fund the award?
    Mrs. Shephard: We are spending record amounts on education. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the independent review body took into account the affordability of the teachers' pay award. It took into account the £700 million held in schools' balances, the £500 million held in local authority balances, the £250 million taken up by surplus places, the £500 million being spent on administrative and clerical posts that the Audit Commission said could be done without and, finally, the £1.2 billion in uncollected rates, community charge and council tax. All that confirms the independent review body's view that the pay award was affordable if local authorities identified their priorities—unlike Northumberland.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that on the day that Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council decided not to fund the teachers' pay settlement it had more than £150 million in reserve? The same county council spends £12,000 per week on conferences and hospitality and £10,000 per week on periodicals and magazines for officials and last year it underspent by £17 million. It is fast becoming one of the worst-run local education authorities in the western world.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend, as ever, gives a cogent illustration of the point that Conservative Members have been making consistently—poor old Kent.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Secretary of State aware that 20 schools in my constituency will lose 18 teachers between them this year? Does she understand that she adds insult to injury by apologising for the meanness of this year's settlement, which does nothing to help schools? I relay to her a question put to me by the head teacher of one of those schools, which is due to lose three staff this year. He wrote to me this week and asked, "Will the Secretary of State please stop sending me expensive brochures about things I have to do when I do not even have the hooks and the teachers to do the basics?"
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could offer the hon. Gentleman a question to relay to Staffordshire local authority, which I understand has about £68 million in reserve.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a significant difference between the number of teachers who might lose their posts and the number who

    651
    need to lose their posts? When a school with a budget of £1.75 million must make a saving of £20,000 the obvious conclusion is not to make teachers redundant.
    Mrs. Shephard: Teacher numbers fluctuate each year. There is a turnover in such a large work force of some 30,000 annually. I do not expect large numbers of redundancies this year. Last year we were told that there would be many redundancies, but in fact teacher numbers increased by 1,000. There may have to be some adjustments in some areas, but one would expect that in view of fluctuations in pupil numbers and other organisational changes.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Secretary of State agree that her recent so-called charm offensive would have been a great deal more charming and a great deal less offensive if she had decided to provide the money for children in the coming year rather than salting it away for tax cuts next year?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has been practising that point in his press release. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may decide about tax policy, firm control of public finances must be at the centre of successful economic policy. I do not think that that lesson has ever been learned by Labour Members.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: In any discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with local education authorities or others, will she continue to emphasise the damage that any strike or industrial action could do in our schools? Is she aware that the result of a massive vote was announced yesterday by the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, which has decided to join with the no-strike Professional Association of Teachers? Is that not an important and welcome development?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly think that the Professional Association of Teachers sets a marvellous professional example to its colleagues. I hope that other organisations will take the message that the number in the Professional Association of Teachers is being enhanced by so many. My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very useful point.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has for amending the law in relation to the holding of financial balances by (a) locally managed and (b) grant-maintained schools. [19176]
    Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Morgan: Do the Government agree in that case that it is totally two faced to set up a large number of systems for grant-maintained schools, for the local management of schools, for training and enterprise councils and GP fundholders—all of which require these new mini-quangos to hold financial balances—and at the same time criticise them for holding those balances? If the Government did not want them to have to hold balances, why did they set up all those mini-quangos in the first place?
    Mr. Squire: Within the rules of the House, I might ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat that question, because I
    652
    think that I lost him a hit when he got on to GP fundholders, which is not something I have previously answered for at the Dispatch Box.
    On grant-maintained schools generally, unless things are organised dramatically differently in the Principality, balances are held by grant-maintained schools in roughly the same way as they are by local education authority schools. The majority of schools save for specific projects, but Ofsted and the Audit Commission have commented that a number do not. That is what has attracted comment.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Is not it a fact that many of our schools hold balances for a huge variety of reasons? Is not it also a fact that one of the reasons is the way in which the local funding formula operates, and that some of the questions that have been directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should more properly be directed to the LEA, questioning why the funding formula can so often disadvantage many schools in that LEA?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right that there are a variety of reasons why schools hold balances and, indeed, acquire them. The central issue is that the success of the local management of schools has encouraged governing bodies to take a much greater say in the control over their schools, and a logical extension of that is grant-maintained status, to which earlier comments have been addressed.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is not the Minister concerned that, because of the liability for grant-maintained schools to pay value added tax in the past financial year, £l7 million was spent on tax rather than books?
    Mr. Squire: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is, no, I am not concerned. Their VAT treatment follows from the nature and status of grant-maintained schools, and the Government have no plans to change that.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action to discourage drug abuse is under way in primary and secondary schools. [19177]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend has committed the Department and the education service to playing a full part in the Government's strategy for drug prevention. The national curriculum requires all primary and secondary schools to teach about the harmful effects of drugs. Following recent consultation, we shall issue next month our circular on drug prevention and schools, with curriculum guidance on teaching about drugs, and a digest of drug education teaching materials. In addition, a range of innovative projects on drug prevention, supported by the Government, started this month.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute the mendacious and malicious misinformation put about by Nigel de Gruchy, which suggests, totally falsely, that the Government recommend that we go soft on the use of drugs in schools? Does my hon. Friend share my regret that, once again, one of the leading teacher

    653
    unions has shown itself incapable of properly representing the interests, not of its extreme left wing, but of the pupils whom it is supposed to serve?
    Mr. Forth: Could that possibly be the same Mr. dc Gruchy who was reported in The Independent on 22 April as saying:
    "is it better for a child to steal a car or to disrupt classes … I suppose I would choose kicking a car in."?
    I would have thought that the judgment of anyone who makes a statement such as that must be—I shall put it as delicately as possible—somewhat suspect. That same individual has obviously failed to read my right hon. Friend's circular on drugs in schools, which states quite unequivocally that the Secretary of State would normally expect teachers to report matters related to drugs to the police. There is no softness of approach here. My right hon. Friend and I are absolutely determined to tackle the problem of drugs in schools with great vigour.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the Minister agree that in our wish to tackle the drugs problem, especially at primary school level, there is a fine balance to be struck in the way that we teach children about drugs and what they can do to people? It is a thin line because if we teach them too much, they get to know too much and by the time they reach secondary school they are actually taking drugs.
    Mr. Forth: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point; it is a concern that is frequently raised. We have to judge whether it is better to tell our young people sensibly and responsibly, and in the right context in schools, about matters such as sex and drugs, or whether to allow them to remain ignorant and to learn, in the wrong places and from the wrong people, the wrong message about those matters. The balance of our judgment—which is widely shared, as has been shown by the wide support for our circular—is that the right way to proceed is to tell young people in the proper way about the dangers of drugs, sex and sexual abuse, rather than leave them in ignorance.

    Truancy
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat truancy. [19178]
    Mr. Forth: In addition to the publication of pupil absence data, the Department is supporting locally devised projects to a value of £15.4 million in some 90 English local education authorities under the truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the grants for education support and training—GEST—scheme for 1995–96.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent answer about what the Government are doing. Does he agree that the primary group dealing with truancy must be the schools, working with parents to ensure that we cut down truancy as much as possible? What effect will the spotlight of publicity on recording the level of truancy in every school have on the truancy figures for the coming year?
    Mr. Forth: I am convinced that, for too long, we have allowed absence from school to go unreported, unrecorded and, to a large extent, unnoticed and not properly dealt with. My firm belief is that in highlighting the problem and bringing out the facts about
    654
    non-attendance at school, we, working with people involved in education, can tackle the problem and ensure that all our young people are in school or being educated—because if they are not in school, they are at risk.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister tell the House what he would think of a head teacher who had a group of disaffected students outside his school, but allowed them back in even though they had not promised to improve their behaviour or to agree to follow school rules? Does he agree that the result would be to undermine the credibility of the head teacher and the discipline of the school?
    Mr. Forth: Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not query the discretion, judgment or infinite wisdom of head teachers or anyone else in charge of groups of people.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce the truancy level would be to increase the number of teachers in classrooms? Will he comment on what has happened in Lancashire, where there are 12,300 teachers to teach 217,000 pupils, a ratio of less than 18:1—yet the true ratio in three quarters of classes in Lancashire is more than 30:1? That means that 4,000 teachers are not teaching pupils in classes. They are outside schools, when they could be better employed inside schools.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that, following my hon. Friend's question and a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) earlier, parents in Lancashire will be asking searching questions about what on earth is happening in their county. It appears that there is a rather odd relationship between the number of pupils, the number of teachers and class sites. I know that my hon. Friends will help parents to get to the bottom of the matter and sort out education in Lancashire.

    Older Student's Allowance
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the withdrawal of the older student's allowance. [19179]
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, including those from university administrators and student unions.
    Mr. Turner: In terms of encouraging older students to enter higher education, the mature student's allowance has been an outstanding success. How can a Minister with responsibility for education justify a Treasury-led cut that will bring such hardship and difficulties to thousands of mature students?
    Mr. Boswell: Any Minister with responsibility for education must consider all priorities in the context of the huge public expenditure on student support and universities, amounting to £6 billion a year in England alone. It is our view that, given that older students receive the full battery of mandatory award—grants and loan provisions from the access fund—and that many of them initiated a career and built up savings, every chance exists that they will continue to come to university in the numbers that have been expanding so rapidly in recent years. The position of all those already on courses has been safeguarded by my right hon. Friend's proposal.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19198]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister join, I am sure, all Members in the House in condemning the use of the word "nigger" by the comedian Bernard Manning, and endorse the comments of the local chief constable that that was a vile, racist performance, and that he would rather that no one among his force went to further performances by Bernard Manning? Will the Prime Minister write to Bernard Manning and remind him that such views, in the year in which we commemorate the sacrifice that our parents made to defeat Nazism, are particularly offensive?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that everyone should avoid expressions that give offence to those who are on the receiving end of such expressions. That is true of Mr. Manning and everyone else.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the open recruitment of homosexuals into the armed forces, and the acceptance of homosexuality in the armed forces would devastate morale within our excellent service?
    The Prime Minister: I have sympathy with the point put to me by my hon. Friend. I know that it is a concern shared by the chiefs of staff.
    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to see the extraordinary spectacle of the victory parade by his Euro-rebels over the Government on the lunchtime news? Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether he has even secured the minimal guarantee from those rebels that, on a future vote of confidence—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Calm down—all of you.
    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister secured even the minimal guarantee from the Euro-rebels that, on a future vote of confidence on Europe, they will support him?
    The Prime Minister: I can sense the concern in the right hon. Gentleman's voice. Perhaps he would like to tell me whether he has received the support of the 50 MPs who defied his Front Bench over Maastricht; of the 40 who defied him over European finance; on a single currency, where the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was in dispute with the deputy leader of the Labour party; and on clause IV, which half his, I think he called them, infantile MEPs want to keep. He does not, and his deputy leader does
    656
    one day and does not the next. These are party matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his position is?
    Mr. Blair: There is one very big difference—I lead my party, he follows his. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is using up very valuable time.
    Mr. Blair: So the short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has received no guarantee whatever. So is it not clear therefore that, after all his tough talk at the beginning about no unity through appeasement, he has caved in, his party is still divided and the white flag flies over Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman leading his hon. Friends below the Gangway. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a real difference. We have been leading in Europe. He will follow in Europe on every issue. He will follow Europe in undermining our veto, in renegotiating our rebate, in surrendering our opt-out, in signing up to the social chapter, in higher taxes, in more spending and in more red tape. His idea of the red flag is the white flag on every conceivable European issue. If he seriously thinks that he leads his party, he should look at the faces of his colleagues below the Gangway.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has traditionally and rightly been loath to allow power to the state that could be used to limit personal freedom unduly, to harass or intrude on privacy? Does he accept that the alleged benefits of introducing identity cards would not justify the risks to civil liberties? Will he dismiss proposals for a national identity card, whether compulsory or so-called voluntary?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that on this issue I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there are significant advantages which identity cards may offer to prevent crime and to prevent fraud. It is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary, intends to publish a Green Paper setting out the various options that are available. We believe that on such an issue it is only right that there should be full public consultation. No option at the moment is ruled in or ruled out until we have completed that consultation period. I believe that it is right to consult. When we have consulted, we will make a decision on whether to proceed and what nature of card we may then seek to introduce.
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19199]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rendel: Given that the level of balances held by county councils is already considerably lower than the level that the Government assume in their calculation of grants to those councils, how does the Prime Minister

    657
    justify calls by himself and many of his hon. Friends that county councils should further run down their balances to make up for the Government's education cuts?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House before, perhaps when the hon. Gentleman was not here, the levels of expenditure on education have risen, not fallen. Of course, in different counties different priority is given to education. Some education authorities—Conservative Brent, for example—have found it possible to increase their spending on education by 6 per cent. Other councils have done the same. It depends on the choices that councils themselves make. I regret that many Labour councils and many Liberal Democrat councils have chosen not to give the priority to education that I would have preferred.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the many changes that the Conservative party has brought about in education policy in the past 16 years, which have widened and diversified choice? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about whether it is time to move one stage further to a national funding formula for education? Is he aware that in Derbyshire the local education authority holds back £720 per pupil compared with £570 in Nottinghamshire, and £550 in Staffordshire? If that money went directly to the schools, there would be no need for any cuts in the number of teachers in our schools. Is it not time that we started to show up the money which LEAs spend in county hall rather than in the schools in our constituencies?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many people in what he has just said. Many responsible education authorities are coping with this year's settlement by getting their priorities right and by ensuring that the bulk of resources go to front-line services such as schools. Many Labour education authorities are not doing that. They seem to be in the lead in financing a messy bureaucracy. I do not know the position in Labour-controlled Derbyshire, but no doubt my hon. Friend does and was correct.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19200]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 21 March that there were two administrators for every three teachers across the country? Where did he get those fictional figures, when the Department for Education and the Welsh Office have said that it is impossible to calculate a ratio of administrative staff to teachers? When outside experts have tried to calculate a ratio, they put it at about 1:8 rather than 2:3. Will he now apologise for misleading the House inadvertently with his spurious reference to that ratio, which was a feeble effort to divert attention from his miserly decision not to fund the teachers' pay award?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman took a long time to he wrong. [Interruption]—Yes, I suggest that he has a look at the figures in "Social Trends".
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a new consensus in British politics, which is based very
    658
    much on Conservative principles? Does not the the Leader of the Opposition pay the Government the greatest compliment by spending most of his time trying to convince the country that when the day comes when he has a policy of his own, it will be a Tory one? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the people of this country were to support that new consensus, which was created by the Conservative party, the best thing that they could do is to vote Conservative and not for the vacuous, pale imitation on the Opposition Benches?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman both criticises our policies and copies our policies whenever he can. I am content for him to do that. I regard imitation as a very sincere form of flattery.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19201]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: In response to a previous question, the Prime Minister referred to high taxation. In that context, will he inform the House how much extra taxation the average family in this country is paying compared with the amount paid in April 1992?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, and he will be pleased to know, that even after extra tax and inflation, households on average are expected to be about £250 better off this year. I can also tell him that most of the figures used by the Labour party about tax should be divided by two before one gets remotely near accuracy.
    Mr. Luff: Whatever the rights and wrongs of teaching children in classes of more than 30, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be repellent for teachers to pick on some children in such classes and expel them from lessons? Is not that an appalling abdication of responsibility for the education of our children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that removing children from classrooms where there are more than 30 pupils will appeal to very many teachers. I know that some people have suggested it. I believe that the common sense of the vast majority of teachers will reject any such notion.
    Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19202]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Berry: In recent debates on the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, they have suggested that citizens advice bureaux will be important in enforcing the Bill's provisions. Is the Prime Minister aware that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has just said that it is in no position to do so? How on earth does he expect the provisions of that Bill to be enforced?
    The Prime Minister: The Bill contains a wide number of provisions. It also contains the provision for the National Disability Council to advise the Government on such issues and we will take whatever advice it chooses to give us on that issue.
    Mr. Gallie: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report from Scottish Nuclear today, which shows that the cost of generation has been reduced to 2.2p per kWh—without the nuclear levy enjoyed by Nuclear Electric? Does he feel that that suggests that, if
    660
    the Government ever picked privatisation for the nuclear industry, Scottish Nuclear could do a magnificent job as a single entity?
    The Prime Minister: We are very close to the completion of the nuclear review and an announcement about its conclusions will be made and a White Paper published as soon as possible. We will present the conclusions to Parliament at that time. Privatisation of the two nuclear generators before the next election is an option that is actively under consideration and so is the future of the fossil fuel levy.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: For the first time in my years in the House I rise on a point of order to seek your help and guidance, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of courtesy between colleagues, about which you have expressed concern. During the past four weeks, three senior Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have visited my constituency. Not one had the courtesy to send me a note of the visit. They were the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Of course, I sent them a note to say that I would raise this point of order referring to them. During those visits, two of them visited projects that are up and running only due to my lobbying in the House for Government finance. I seek your help and guidance on how we might prevent that sort of thing from happening in future, as it is a discourtesy.
Madam Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Lady, but I can give the House guidance, as I have done on numerous occasions. I expect hon. Members to inform each other when they are visiting other Members' constituencies in a public capacity. I have said so on numerous occasions. As the House knows, I have no authority to ensure that that is carried out.
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, when two hon. Members were suspended, you said that they could use their offices provided that they took the direct route. Have you changed the policy, because some of my hon. Friends, who have been expelled for what some of us would consider trivial reasons, have been banished from the premises? What is worse, they have been taken ignominiously to their offices by the Serjeant at Arms and escorted through the gate. Will you clarify the matter for the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member obviously wants some explanation. Access to the House is a matter for the Speaker. There is an anomaly between the Standing Order—[interruption.] Just a moment. Let us have a little quiet as this is a serious matter. There is an anomaly between suspensions made under Standing Order No. 43 and suspensions made in other circumstances, as laid down in "Erskine May". When the House suspends a Member under the Standing Order, he or she is not allowed to enter the precincts. According to "Erskine May", when a matter has gone before the Privileges Committee and a Member is suspended from the House, that Member is not excluded from the precincts, unless the order for his suspension expressly provides for that. That is an intolerable situation, which is why I chose the compromise of allowing those Members to have access to their offices, but by the most direct route only. I have referred the matter to the Procedure Committee because I
662
am not satisfied with how it stands. I want a clear ruling from that Committee so that it will be clear for all hon. Members in future.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the first point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the same judgment apply to Ministers? Last week, a Minister came to my constituency to visit a crumbling school that desperately needs some money—he did the Labour party good because he said that he would not give us the money. He visited Withinfield school in my constituency and did not inform me. When a local councillor, who was there to meet him, asked where the money would conic from, he stayed away for two and a half hours because he did not want to face the flak.
Madam Speaker: Yes. My ruling affects everyone.
Mr. Mike Hall rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it a me-too-ism?
Mr. Hall: Yes, Madam Speaker. Further to that point of order, the Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment recently visited my constituency, both without the courtesy of informing me that they would do so. Will you pass judgment on that as well?
Madam Speaker: I do not exclude Ministers from this ruling. I see that the Leader of the House is on the Treasury Bench. I know how keen he is on this matter and I hope that he will assist me in letting Ministers know that their offices should inform hon. Members when Ministers are to visit an hon. Member's constituency.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance because, during Prime Minister's questions today, I and a number of my colleagues noticed that at least two or three persons who are no longer members of the press but are now advisers to the Leader of the Opposition were in the Press Gallery. Should they be there at all, given that they no longer work for organs of the press with official press passes?
Madam Speaker: From where I sit, I can see no one in the Press Gallery. I should like the evidence from the hon. Gentleman and I shall then make a decision about it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you and the rest of the House would thoroughly agree with the Prime Minister when he said today that we should not use derogatory expressions that give great offence to those against whom they are aimed. Are you aware of the expression being used, as a result of which the person against whom it was used said that he felt like Cardigan at the charge of the Light Brigade, and he does not want to be referred to as a Conservative again?
Madam Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. It is one of the usual bogus points of order that I get at this time on a Tuesday.

Road Traffic Reduction
3.36 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes.
Some two years ago, I introduced under the ten-minute rule an Energy Conservation Bill. At that time, energy conservation was not a subject of passionate debate in the House but, for a number of reasons, it became so. Following a vigorous campaign and through a tortuous process, and thanks to the fact that it was adopted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), a Home Energy Conservation Bill based on it has completed its passage through the House and should be on the statute book before long.
The Road Traffic Reduction Bill that I am introducing today is, in many ways, similar. Its starting point is the imperative of moving towards environmental sustainability, but it has important social, economic and health implications. It gives local government a central role, modelled on that in the Energy Conservation Bill. A major difference is the fact that its subject is already a matter of passionate debate.
It is particularly timely that I should be introducing this Bill a few days after the publication of the Environment Select Committee's report on volatile organic compounds, just one of the pollutants produced from road traffic exhausts. That report follows the royal commission report on transport and the environment; the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment referring to the traffic-generating effect of road building; and the Transport Select Committee's report on road traffic emission.
The health effects of traffic emissions, particularly affecting children, have concentrated our minds on the issue. A cocktail of pollutants—nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulates and volatile organic compounds—are, in all probability, linked to the doubling of asthma among children over the past 10 years and the estimate in a report by Lancaster university that 15 million people in the UK suffer health problems as a result of road traffic near their homes. But that is not all. Increasing road traffic swallows up land, reduces biodiversity and consumes natural resources at a huge rate, causing further environmental and other damage in their extraction and processing. It is a major negative factor in reducing the quality of people's lives and almost certainly in fragmenting communities and informal social networks, leading to alienation and an increasing crime rate.
Nearly 4,000 people die on the roads each year and the lives of thousands more are blighted through injury—children and the elderly are the most affected. Road accidents are the main cause of death in the 10 to 14–year-old age group. Small wonder that only 20 per cent. of schoolchildren walk to school today compared with 80 per cent. 20 years ago. That has exacerbated the problem of road traffic.
664
The recent conference at Berlin confirmed that climate change as a result of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions is, in all probability, a grave reality. The increase in road transport is a major, growing factor influencing climate change. In the United Kingdom, 24 per cent. of CO2 emissions come from surface transport and of them 80 per cent. come from road transport. Between 1970 and 1990, CO2 emissions from road transport almost doubled. If the Government's prediction of a doubling in the number of vehicles on the road by 2025 is fulfilled, it will more than negate the reductions in CO2 emissions achieved through greater efficiency in other sectors.
The planned increase in private car use in so-called "developing" countries such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia constitutes a global problem of staggering proportions. It serves to emphasise the need for developed countries such as the United Kingdom, with direct experience of the negative effects of what was seen at one time as an unmixed blessing, to seek to influence by setting an example. How do we turn the tide?
Many people would place their faith in technological improvements, new fuels and so on. They are important developments, but they merely address the issue of health-damaging pollutants. I can do no better than offer a quotation from the report published last week by the Environment Select Committee, to illustrate the complexity of the issue. It stated:
"Road traffic is a major source of many significant pollutants…and any strategy to reduce emissions must take all of these into account. The 'diesel versus petrol' debate illustrates the danger of looking solely at VOCs: the VOC emissions from diesel engines are far lower than those from petrol, but diesel engines emit higher levels of particulates which are now thought to present a greater risk to health than the typical levels of VOCs from a petrol engine. Looking at the problem from a different angle, VOC emissions could be cut dramatically if all non-catalyst cars were immediately scrapped and replaced with new vehicles. However, the manufacture of new cars uses energy and produces carbon dioxide, which may have a consequence for global warming."
It is worth noting the next sentence in the report:
"It is now widely recognised that the only sustainable long term solution to traffic pollution is a reduction in traffic growth."
I would go further, because I believe that we should talk about a reduction in traffic. How will that be brought about?
The Government are committed to the use of economic instruments to achieve environmental targets, the annual 5 per cent. real terms increase in petrol duty figures prominent among them. I would not deny the validity of such instruments, which need to considered in the context of the vital debate on environmental taxation as against taxation on people and employment. To depend purely and simply on economic instruments would be ineffective, inequitable and damaging to rural areas such as my constituency, where there is currently little alternative to the motor car and where distribution costs are significant.
The Bill, which has been prepared by Friends of the Earth and the Green party, approaches the problem from the other direction. It requires the relevant Secretary of State to draw up a United Kingdom-wide road traffic reduction plan with targets of stabilisation by the year 2000; a 5 per cent. reduction in traffic by 2005; and a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010. Local authorities are required to draw up plans for reducing traffic through measures related to public transport and rail transport, appropriate planning policies, traffic calming, pedestrianisation and

665
public education. The royal commission supports the principle of targets as does the Confederation of British Industry.
The report of the Environment Select Committee also stressed the role of local authorities, which is in keeping with Agenda 21's emphasis on local action through local Agenda 21s, in which traffic reduction should be a crucial component. Local authorities have the expertise and detailed knowledge of their areas to devise measures appropriate to them. They alone could facilitate the widespread public consultation and consciousness building that are the essential preconditions for success. Their task would be enormously challenging and exciting, and they would co-operate with each other, sharing ideas and examples of best practice and drawing on the store of ideas that already exist both here and abroad.
I draw the attention of the House to the excellent document from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, "Wales Needs Transport, Not Traffic", and to the ideas of the Countryside Council for Wales for promoting green holidays, linking public transport with cycling and walking routes.
In continental Europe, there are numerous examples of cities whose achievements in actually reducing traffic levels have been positively received both by the general public and by the commercial sector. The Bill would provide a useful framework for a progressive traffic reduction policy. I invite hon. Members to support it and I look forward to its further progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Nick Ainger.

Road Traffic Reduction
  ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION
  Mr. Cynog Dafis accordingly presented a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  Fiftieth Anniversary of the end of World War II
  3.46 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, recalling the humble Addresses presented to His Majesty King George VI on the 17th May and 21st August 1945, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our joy in commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of the defeat of the forces of evil which it brought, our thanks for the fortitude of the men and women who served with the armed forces or who participated in the war effort in civilian life between 1939 and 1945, our recognition of the sacrifice made on behalf of future generations by those who died or who were disabled in their country's service, and our desire that the constructive work of peace for which our predecessors in 1945 prayed may continue and grow in the years to come.
  It has long been a tradition of the House that we mark significant national events by presenting a humble Address to the sovereign. That was the case in May 1945 when Mr. Winston Churchill moved the motion for such an Address to be presented to His Majesty King George VI. The motion on that occasion expressed the gratitude of the nation for the end of the war in Europe, together with a wish to see a speedy conclusion to the war in the east. That wish was met; just three months later the House was able to present another humble Address to His Majesty after the successful conclusion of the war against Japan.
  Throughout the war, the royal family symbolised the unity of the nation and of the Commonwealth, and the willingness to make whatever sacrifices were necessary to ensure victory and the preservation of a free way of life. When Britain stood alone, the courage and determination of the King and Queen offered strength to the British people and to countless millions of people beyond our shores.
  It is no surprise that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother continues to hold such a special place in the affections of the British people. Many remember, and countless millions who were not alive at the time know, the fortitude and resilience that she and the King displayed throughout the war. The then Princess Elizabeth—a teenager when the war began, now Her Majesty the Queen—played her full part in furthering the war effort, and Her Majesty has continued to set an example of duty and service to the nation and to the Commonwealth throughout the 50 years since then.
  The commemoration of the end of the war is not a triumphalist occasion, but an occasion to pay proper tribute to the millions of brave men and women whose lives were cruelly, often tragically, disrupted by the demands of the war that had to be won.
  Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings. Everyone who took part in the commemorative events was profoundly moved by them. I, for one, will long remember the march-past of the veterans on the sands of Arromanches. There were thousands upon thousands of them—brave men and women in their 70s and 80s now, often with a chestful of medals and a mind full of memories, some with sticks, some pushed in

  667
  wheelchairs, some limping, some walking, some marching, but all moving with pride before the Queen, and with their memories of their service to their nation in the last war.
  As the House will know, a number of events are planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VE day next month and of VJ day in August. It is appropriate that the prelude to those events should be the parliamentary occasion of presenting a humble Address to the Queen.
  Here in the Chamber we have a constant reminder of those days 50 years ago. The Churchill Arch, at the entrance from the Members' Lobby, was rebuilt from the original, damaged in the bombing raids of 1941. It poignantly recalls how even the mother of Parliaments made its sacrifice. As Churchill himself said, all of us present here today, who are uniquely privileged to pass through that Arch, should
  "look back from time to time upon their forbears who
  '—kept the bridge
  In the brave days of old.'"—[Official Report, 25 January 1945; Vol. 407, c. 1006.]
  As our Parliament sat through the war it symbolised the dogged determination of democracy; a determination to overcome tyranny and dictatorship that was shared by countless millions throughout the world. For the price of sacrifice was paid here, too. Twenty-two Members of the House—together with 35 Members of the House of Lords and five members of staff of both Houses—were killed during the war. Eighteen present Members of the House also saw active service in the war and some, perhaps all, are present here in the Chamber on this occasion. Many others now sit along the Corridor in the other place. For them, the commemorations will hold special memories; and to them, we—who inherit the parliamentary freedom that they helped protect—owe special thanks.
  When His Majesty King George VI replied to the humble Address 50 years ago, he said:
  "It is My most fervent hope that we are entering upon an age of peaceful progress, wherein the natural talent and enterprise of My peoples can be devoted to the advancement of the happiness and prosperity of mankind."—[Official Report, 21 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 417]
  Looking back over the past 50 years, we can see that many of the hopes for peace and reconciliation have been rewarded, but we have not banished conflict and terror throughout the globe. We have troops on peacekeeping and humanitarian duties in many countries. In recent days, there has been the tragic bomb attack in Oklahoma. This House has had direct experience of terrorist attacks, and several hon. Members have been the victims of terrorists.
  The successful outcome of the second world war showed the importance of a determined and united effort to defeat military aggression. As we look ahead, we must exercise the same determination as was shown then, to counter the threat from terrorism, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world.
  Madam Speaker, this is an occasion to look both back and forward. The perils of the last war dwarf the petty rancours of everyday politics today. I believe that our country has many reasons to look forward with hope to the future. I believe that, as we do so, it is right that we should look back thankfully to the sacrifices of the past. The whole House, the whole nation, the whole Commonwealth, will wish to remember and give thanks.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: It is my privilege to associate myself entirely with what the Prime Minister has just said and with his sentiments about the royal family. It is a time for our nation to speak with one voice of remembrance, of joy at a victory magnificently won and sadness at the loss of life necessary to achieve it.
  We remember a triumph that is all the more unalloyed because it was a victory, not as much of nation over nation, as of good over evil. The fight against Hitler and fascism was, and indeed remains, the moral case for taking up arms.
  I was born almost a decade after the war ended and it was my father's generation who fought it. On behalf of my generation, I say to his that we pay tribute to their sacrifice and bravery with humility and gratitude. We recall the courage of the troops who fought and, in their millions, died or were wounded. Some of them bear their wounds to this day.
  We commemorate, too, the millions of men and women who never left Britain during the war, but who played such a conclusive part in it—the firefighters, the ambulance men and women, the nurses and the police—and who worked, often through the blitz and in as great danger as those at the front. We remember the factory munitions workers, Bevin's boys down the mines, and the steel and ship workers who placed production at full stretch in the war effort.
  We reflect, not just on the great battles fought and the medals of honour granted, but on the countless small acts of heroism, which are often unrecorded and the memory of which may be effaced, but whose spirit won the war. The country at that time worked with one heart and one mind to one end, and succeeded. The solidarity of the nation persisted after the war in rebuilding the towns and the cities, putting people back to work, and creating the modern structures of a national health service and a welfare state capable of offering hope to heroes.
  So what, at this distance of half a century, are the lessons of the war that we can learn? We learn about pride in our country—there are few nations, if any, that can claim without exaggeration to have helped save the world from tyranny. We learn about the strength of freedom and democracy as motivators of the human soul because we remember, too, today, not just ourselves but the millions in other countries—particularly perhaps those Jewish people in countries conquered by Hitler—who continued to resist, no matter what the cost. We learn about the fragility of peace and the utter catastrophe of modern warfare, which the years before and during the war amply demonstrate. We learn humankind's deadly potential, amidst progress, for regression to primitive barbarity. We know now that if we choose to appease evil as it grows, we shall in the end be forced to fight it when it is fully grown. We think that with all the knowledge of our modern world, such evil can never happen again, but that generation thought that it would never happen at all.
  We fought the war, but we did not do so alone. It is right that we remember our allies, and thank them. One of the most moving stories of statesmanship in the war came in January 1941, when defeat for Britain was certainly possible. We desperately needed the help of

  669
  America. Harry Hopkins, the emissary of President Roosevelt, was here. At a dinner in his honour in Scotland, he said:
  "I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return."
  And then, quoting from the Bible, he said:
  "whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God".
  Hopkins then added:
  "Even to the end".
  That was the spirit of those times.
  There was no doubt that this was a war to save civilisation. At the end of the war, as within Britain, so outside it, nation co-operated with nation to set up the institutions of international governance to act as a bulwark against disunity and aggression—the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, later, the European Community. Amid all the cynicism about them, we should give thanks that there was the vision to build them and that, by and large, their role has been constructive and positive.
  Let us hope that such a time of evil will not arise again, but let us never forget that it did. It confronted us with an intensity and menace unsurpassed in our history. Let us give thanks that we rose up against it, defeated it and so provided a future of hope for this generation and the generations yet unborn.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am privileged and delighted to be able to support the words in the motion moved by the Prime Minister and echoed by the leader of the Labour party.
  Of course, it is absolutely right that we should express our pleasure to Her Majesty the Queen in celebrating and commemorating that victory of 50 years ago, a victory in which Her Majesty's father and family played such an extraordinary and very large part, in terms of leadership and symbolism.
  Speaking in the debate to which the Prime Minister referred, the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, said of the royal family:
  "It is the symbol which gathers together and expresses those deep emotions and stirrings of the human heart which make men travel … and die together, and cheerfully abandon material possessions and enjoyments for the sake of abstract ideas."—[Official Report, 15 May 1945: Vol. 410, c. 2305.]
  They may have seemed abstract ideas at the time, although I doubt that they felt them too much, but today they mean to us no less than our freedom, our civilisation, our capacity to have survived such a terrible evil and, of course, above all an expression of our national resolve and national unity. It is therefore right that we should
  670
  celebrate, but it is right also that we should remember the pain of those without whose sacrifice that victory would not have been possible.
  It is impossible for us to measure the debt that we owe to those who gave, all too often, their lives or, frequently, experienced a lifetime of maimed disability to ensure that we have had this half century being able to enjoy freedom, that a great evil was defeated and that the nations of Europe could come together to seek to banish war from our continent for ever. In the shadow of that, we saw a great unity in our nation and we saw the beginnings of the building of international institutions that also seek to tackle the evil of fascism and aggression in the world today. It is a moment to celebrate; it is also a moment to remember; and it is a moment to pray that the peace for which they paid such a high price may continue for us all.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that, had it not been for the courage of the British nation around the globe and the steadfastness of the House of Commons and Parliament, the nations of Europe would never have been liberated and that, in such circumstances, it is by no means impossible to imagine that the Nazi swastika would to this day have been flying over the capital cities of Europe?
  Will my right hon. Friend make it clear how enormously welcome Her Majesty will be when she comes to the House on 5 May and how appropriate it is that the initial phase of this 50th anniversary commemoration should start here, in the House of Commons?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, recalling the humble Addresses presented to His Majesty King George VI on the 17th May and 21st August 1945, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our joy in commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of the defeat of the forces of evil which it brought. our thanks for the fortitude of the men and women who served with the armed forces or who participated in the war effort in civilian life between 1939 and 1945, our recognition of the sacrifice made on behalf of future generations by those who died or who were disabled in their country's service, and our desire that the constructive work of peace for which our predecessors in 1945 prayed may continue and grow in the years to come.
  Ordered,
  That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Ordered,
  That such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, do humbly know Her Majesty's Pleasure when she will be attended by the House with the said Address.—[Mr. Newton.]

Orders of the Day

  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an important Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that high-quality, professional performance is maintained by all doctors in the national health service and in private practice. It will help to ensure that patients receive the standard of caring and up-to-date professional practice that they have a right to expect.
  The Government stand for first-class public services and the Bill is part of that commitment. The citizens charter and the patients charter have brought a major change in attitude and performance in the NHS, so that it is now a service centred on patients.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. Will she confirm here and now that when she talks about all doctors, she includes in that definition hospital consultants? Most of the complaints brought to me by constituents have concerned the negligence of hospital consultants rather than general practitioners.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly confirm that the Bill refers to all doctors. If I can make a bit more headway before the next intervention, I shall make that absolutely clear.
  The Bill is part of our commitment to ensure that the national health service lives up to the highest standards expected by the public. Already, we have had dramatic improvements in the responsiveness and quality of care available. The changes that I recently announced to the systems for handling complaints, following the Wilson report, is part of that movement. Similarly, the new code on openness is a further example of how we are getting better at responding to the needs of patients and the expectations of the public.
  The heart of the health service is its doctors, nurses and other clinical staff. Their dedication, professionalism and quality are rightly a source of national pride. They are respected throughout the world.
  All of us in the House acknowledge the tough job that clinicians have to do. That demanding job does not get easier when the expectations of the public rise with demographic changes and, inevitably, there is always a finite budget. Only recently, the case of Child B brought into the full media glare some of the complex ethical decisions that clinicians regularly face in their normal working lives.
  Doctors have been at the forefront of the culture change in the NHS. They are now rightly expected to be held accountable for the vast sums of taxpayers' money that they spend, as well as for the care that they provide. Most doctors recognise that as a valid feature of a modern health service, where it is no more acceptable knowingly to misuse its resources than it is to pursue a course of action which is clinically unsound.
  672
  The NHS has to be well and strongly managed. Many doctors respond positively to that by becoming involved in the management of the service, whether through GP fundholding, for example, where family doctors are able to back their clinical judgment by direct access to the budget that they control, or through the other many opportunities as medical or clinical directors of the new health authorities, as directors of public health or by offering professional advice. There are now unlimited opportunities for doctors to influence and shape the development of the health service.
  Doctors are no longer the unchallenged paragons they once were in the eyes of the public. Patients are better informed, more assertive and more ready to question and complain. That certainly puts pressure on the medical profession, which is held to account in an ever more public atmosphere.
  A new climate is spreading, where treatments are analysed on the basis of clinical effectiveness and outcomes. Clinical audit is well established. Our pioneering research and development strategy is spreading on a systematic basis information about the latest state of medical knowledge. Tomorrow my hon. Friend the Minister will be launching the next phase of our movement towards evidence-based medicine with the Cochrane collaboration. All those changes mean that the practice of medicine takes place ever more in the limelight and is subject to increasing scrutiny.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene on the Secretary of State and I acknowledge the report that she has given about doctors. Will she confirm or deny that she intends to introduce performance indicators for doctors and other clinicians in the health service? How will that system operate if she intends to introduce it?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have no such intentions; I am simply describing the atmosphere in which medical practice now takes place. It is subject to scrutiny and evaluation in a way that was inconceivable even 10 years ago and it means that all doctors are under greater pressure to keep up to date with the latest advances in medicine. As medicine becomes more complex, capable and involved, there is a pressure and an obligation on all professionals to ensure that they are protecting their patients and serving them according to the latest knowledge and understanding of care.
  In general practice it is now often possible to treat and to manage diseases, such as heart disease, stomach ulcers and asthma, which once required a high degree of hospital care. Doctors, particularly in family health services, used to work in professional isolation. Today fewer general practitioners work alone because there is a much greater emphasis on team working. GPs and specialists increasingly work side by side in modern medical centres, bringing what was once thought of as hospital care closer to patients. Nurses, doctors and other professionals work together in community health teams and there is closer working between GPs and clinicians in hospitals.
  That does much to improve the treatment and care of cancer sufferers, for example. Only yesterday, we unveiled our framework for the future of cancer services. That close linking and greater sharing of knowledge between GPs and clinicians in hospitals and the patients and public is a theme of that new framework. All those new developments mean an unprecedented change in the

  673
  way in which modern medicine is delivered. A doctor has a clear duty to keep up to date, to know what is appropriate and what is not, and to know when to seek help and advice from colleagues.
  To its credit, the profession has recognised those changes and the need that comes with them to assess continually the performance of doctors. I pay tribute to the General Medical Council whose work has resulted in this Bill. The Bill stems from the profession's recognition that, no matter how qualified, dedicated or expert the majority of its members may be, the standards demonstrated by a small number of practitioners will from time to time fall below what patients have a right to expect. In those cases, proper procedures must exist that will enable action to be taken to protect patients and to raise the quality of care.
  When doctors arc guilty of serious professional misconduct or when a doctor's fitness to practise is seriously impaired by ill health, the powers exist to act. Doctors who are accused of serious misconduct appear before the GMC's professional conduct committee, where the evidence is tested to the criminal standard of proof in adversarial proceedings. Doctors who are found guilty can be struck off. Similarly, the GMC has powers to suspend from the register those doctors who are too ill to perform their duties.
  However, no such powers exist to deal with doctors whose performance may be seriously deficient but who, nevertheless, fall short of those extremes. The GMC receives details of a number of cases upon which it cannot take any formal action, even though it may be apparent that the underlying performance of the doctor concerned is very poor. At present, those doctors are beyond the law; they can remain on the register and the council has no power even to require them to address their shortcomings. That is bad for patients and bad for doctors.
  The Bill plugs the gap. It is a Government Bill, but the House will be aware that the initiative came from the GMC. I pay a warm tribute to Sir Robert Kilpatrick, president of the GMC, who has been the primary influence behind the changes. He set up a working group to examine the problem and he single-handedly carried through consultations with a wide range of individuals and organisations both within and outside the medical profession. A period of formal consultation followed in 1992, and in November of that year Sir Robert secured the agreement of the GMC to proposals that differ little to those which appear in the present Bill. Indeed, I can say that, on being appointed as Secretary of State, three years ago, almost the first invitation that I received was to discuss with Sir Robert these proposals and how we could secure a journey to the legislative Chamber to ensure that they were enacted.
  Sir Robert retires at the end of August this year. If enacted, the Bill will be a fitting tribute to his energy, determination and powers of persuasion as well as to an outstanding period as president of the GMC. In large part due to his efforts, the measures in the Bill command the wide support of the medical profession. They also enjoy cross-party support. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for the support that she has given to the Bill in principle, and to the Liberal Democrat spokesman similarly. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) sits on the
  674
  GMC, as does the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), to whom I pay particular tribute, as he is the longest-standing Member of Parliament on the GMC and has been closely involved in the "fitness to practise" proceedings.
  It may be of assistance to the House if I speak at this stage about the GMC in a little more detail. The GMC is the self-regulatory body of the medical profession. It consists of 102 members, 89 of whom are qualified doctors, the rest representing different professional and lay interests, including, as I have said, Members of Parliament from each of the main political parties. The House will be aware that, at present, the GMC is taking forward proposals to increase its lay membership—a further example of the need for all professions to ensure that they carry the confidence of the public in the vital work that they do.
  The GMC's primary role is to maintain a register of all those who are qualified as medical practitioners. That duty provides an assurance to the public that all registered doctors are qualified to practise. The GMC must assure itself that those admitted to the register are competent. It must also ensure that those on the register remain fit to practise. As the Merrison committee put it in 1975,
  "the maintenance of a register of the competent is fundamental to the regulation of a profession".
  That remains as true today as it did in 1975, or, indeed, at any time since the passing of the original Medical Act in 1858. In essence, that is the subject of today's debate. How can the GMC ensure that doctors on its register have maintained their competence in a fast-moving medical environment and continue to meet the high standards of performance set by the medical profession?
  The Bill does that by making important changes to the professional regulatory powers of the GMC. New professional performance procedures will be introduced; and two new statutory committees—the assessment referral committee and the committee on professional performance—will be created to implement the new procedures. We propose to establish those new procedures in a way that is consistent with the principle that self-regulation is the most appropriate way for the medical profession to be governed and that it is the best way to maintain the high standards that the public rightly expects of its doctors, and which the great majority of doctors achieve. That principle is both long established and cherished by the profession, and it is one which the Government support.
  The value of self-regulation has been further demonstrated by the fact that it was, as I have said, the GMC itself that first identified the gaps in its powers and took the initiative in asking the Government to introduce the measures that are now set out in the Bill. The professional performance procedures proposed will go a long way towards plugging the gap. They will do so in a novel way. The procedures are not there to ascertain whether the doctor is guilty of a particular instance of alleged deficiency. They do not offer individual redress for patients' complaints, although patients will receive feedback.
  The Bill aims to achieve what many people say that they want when they complain: to see that something is done to stop a similar incident happening again. The purpose of the new procedures is to inquire into the underlying causes of any problems that have been

  675
  reported. The GMC will consider whether the matters complained of, particularly where there has been a series of complaints, show a pattern of serious deficiency in the standard of the doctor's professional performance. If that is the case, the doctor will be asked to have his performance assessed by a panel independent of the GMC, which will include two doctors of the same specialty plus one lay doctor. The panel's key role is to identify whether there are any significant weaknesses in the doctor's performance, to discuss those with the doctor and to give advice on what the doctor can do to remedy the position.
  What I have described is initially a consensual process. The aim of the Bill overall is remedial. Wherever possible, we want expensively trained doctors to be put on the right track. However, it is important that the procedures work where the doctor does not consent. Therefore, much of the Bill provides for where the co-operation of the doctor is not engaged or where it breaks down for various reasons. It also provides for a doctor's registration to be suspended or for conditions to be attached to registration if that would be in the public interest and would help to protect the doctor's patients.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I support the Bill and, as the Secretary of State said, I am a member of the GMC. While a doctor is suspended and going through the procedures, will his registration on the GMC's register show that he is suspended, so that the general public can be aware of that?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I understand that while the inquiry is under way, the register will show the suspension. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that patients' interests should be safeguarded in that way.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: At the risk of sounding patronising, I wonder whether I could help my right hon. Friend. I imagine that by the time such a position was shown on the register, it would not fall within the cycle of that register's publication.
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is true, but it is important that the information is available to those who wish to have access to the register.
  Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. I am concerned that under part 3 of the procedures, the doctor could go round and round in a loop, for a period even exceeding three years. Despite what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said, as I understand the procedures it is possible for a doctor to be retrained and continue to be retrained for quite a lengthy period. Would the Secretary of State be happy to put some limit on the period that a doctor can keep going round the loop?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which can be explored further in Committee when he will no doubt wish to develop his argument.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the engagement of locums? Will people be warned so that they do not inadvertently engage such doctors?
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is something that the doctor concerned would need to discuss with his employers—either a trust or the family health services authority,
  676
  depending on the doctor's circumstances. Much would depend on the seriousness of the matters under consideration.
  As I have said, it is important that we are prepared not only for cases where there is consent, but for those where the doctor does not consent. The Bill provides for cases where the co-operation of the doctor is not engaged or where it breaks down for various reasons. It also provides for a doctor's registration to be suspended or for conditions to be attached to the registration, if that would be in the public interest and would help to protect the doctor's patients.
  I commend to the House a short paper prepared by the GMC on its proposed performance procedures. It explains step by step how the system works. A number of copies have already been placed in the Library. I shall, however, go through the course of a case where the doctor agrees to the process and then explain in more detail how the system will cope with an unco-operative doctor. I am aware that in Committee it will be possible to scrutinise that journey in even greater detail. The GMC will identify doctors whose performance is seriously deficient through information sent to it: for example, through patients' complaints, information from other doctors, or cases referred following NHS service committee hearings. Overall, the GMC expects that the number of doctors subject to assessment under the new procedures will be in the order of 100 to 150, of whom 50 to 75 might be subject to remedial training or sanction.
  Anyone can bring information about a doctor's performance to the GMC's attention. The doctor may be working in the NHS or private practice. The informant will not have to be personally involved in the matter. For instance, surgeons who have to rectify the mistakes of another doctor—perhaps of cosmetic surgery—would have a duty to report those matters to the GMC.
  I am pleased that the GMC has made the position clear in its Blue Book entitled "Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practice". It says:
  "It is any doctor's duty, where the circumstances so warrant, to inform an appropriate person or authority about a colleague whose professional conduct or fitness to practise may be called into question or whose professional performance appears to be in some way deficient."
  That is an important message and one that is often difficult to have fully accepted and used throughout the service, but all professionals have an obligation to be alert and vigilant about their colleagues' quality of performance.
  Employing authorities and trusts will be aware of poor performance from a variety of sources. It is important that the NHS complaints and disciplinary procedures, based on the Wilson review, which we have only recently announced should be carried out properly. In addition, employers should consider whether to refer the matter to the GMC. The GMC and the employer have separate and complementary roles. Some problems will be dealt with entirely by the employer; in some cases, only the GMC will be able to act, and in a minority of cases both will need to take action.
  Patients or other relatives who are concerned that other people may be suffering from the same poor treatment as they experience may wish to report it to the GMC. The information given to it will have to be well founded and

  677
  to give it grounds for considering that the incident is not just a one-off, but an indication of a pattern of poor performance which should be investigated further.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Does not the Secretary of State's remark imply that a single incident can never rank as being serious enough to challenge professional performance? Her last remark seems to imply that repetition is the centre of the argument, whereas a single incident, if it were serious enough, could be serious within the terms of the Bill.
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the incident were serious, it might be considered as part of serious professional misconduct, but we are considering here a one-off incident that is not sufficiently serious for the existing procedures, that is of a lower order, and that therefore may be part of a continuous pattern of poor performance. The aim of the proposal is precisely to fill that gap.
  Anyone who has given information to the GMC will be kept informed of the action taken at various stages of the process. They will, of course, be notified of the outcome of any hearings by the committee on professional performance.
  Whatever the source of information, the GMC must take the matter seriously. The first step is to consider under which procedure the case should be considered. This relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). Should the case be considered under conduct, health or professional performance? Whatever the case may be, the matter will be considered by a screener who will be a medically qualified member of the GMC. In cases of alleged poor performance, the performance screener will be empowered to investigate the background of the case, and to consider whether a prima facie case exists of serious deficiency in the doctor's professional performance. The informant may be asked to make a sworn statement about the allegation.
  The screener may wish to take advice from an expert in the same speciality as the doctor under review before deciding what action needs to be taken. The screener will either invite the doctor to undergo an assessment or conclude that no action should be taken. In that case, a lay screener is also involved in deciding that no action is required.
  If further information uncovered by the screener suggested that there were health reasons underlying the doctor's poor performance, the matter could be remitted to the health screener under the health procedures. Where no formal action is proposed under the GMC's fitness to practise procedures, the doctor may be invited to comment informally on the information received. Any reply would then be sent to the informant.
  Where formal action is proposed, the screener will advise the doctor of the information received by the GMC and invite the doctor to undergo an assessment. If the doctor does not agree with the screener, the matter will be considered by the assessment referral committee. That committee's role is to provide an appeal forum for the doctor who does not agree with the decision of the screener that he should undergo an assessment. It ensures that contested decisions that may affect the doctor's future are not taken by one GMC member alone.
  678
  Once the committee has considered written submissions from the doctor or given the opportunity of a hearing, it may either direct that the doctor undergo an assessment or decide that there is no prima facie case of seriously deficient professional performance and close the matter. If the committee confirms the screener's decision, the screener will arrange for the assessment.
  If I may, I shall go into a little more detail of the assessment process. It will be carried out by an assessment panel which will consist of two medical practitioners from the same specialty as the doctor and a lay person. None of these panel members will be members of the GMC. They will be drawn from lists of specialists nominated by the professional bodies, including the royal colleges and the British Medical Association. Lay members will be nominated by non-medical bodies. The procedures to be followed by the panels will be set out in rules made by the GMC, approved by the Privy Council and laid before Parliament. The panel will also be given guidance and training on how to carry out the assessment process.
  As the House would expect, the GMC has already started work on some of the details involved. In 1993 it appointed Professor Lesley Southgate, a distinguished professor of general practice, to begin developing the assessment procedures in co-operation with experts from each of the specialties. The assessment programmes will underpin the new procedures in the Bill. To give the House a flavour of what it involved, I shall describe her work in a little more detail.
  Professor Southgate has pilot-tested with volunteers on several occasions her system for assessing GPs. The assessment consists of a review of a doctor's records, a written test of his or her knowledge, observing the doctor in practice, discussing performance with selected third parties, a test of clinical skills and a face-to-face interview, which includes a review of one or two of the doctor's recent cases. Those are certainly rigorous procedures which the GMC is looking to extend into the various specialties. Pilots are under way, for example, for assessing the performance of anaesthetists.
  In as much as the Government's policies have encouraged those trends, I make no apology. The health service exists for its patients and to provide the latest and the most modern care. However, it is right to recognise the extra pressure that this puts on doctors. Describing how the GPs in the trial had reacted to her grilling, Professor Southgate stated:
  "they found it stressful but a great thing once done".
  Perhaps that is a fair assessment of many of the changes now taking place in the national health service.
  At the end of the assessment process, a report will be prepared by the chairman of the assessment panel and sent to the doctor, who will be invited to take on board its recommendations. The doctor will be asked to confirm his acceptance and compliance with the recommendations. If he does not, the matter will be referred to the committee on professional performance.
  If the doctor agrees to take remedial action, a period will be allowed for the necessary training or other remedial action and for it to be put into practice before a second assessment is carried out. After this initial period of remedial action, the assessment panel will assess the doctor's progress. If the doctor's level of performance has been remedied, the case will be concluded. Where there

  679
  has been some progress and further action might be productive, the doctor may be allowed to undertake a further period of remedial action.
  If the doctor does not appear to have benefited at all from this remedial period, there may be the opportunity to ask for the voluntary removal of his name from the register. If the doctor wishes, the matter will be referred to the committee on professional performance. Alternatively, the screener will either arrange a further assessment or refer the matter to the committee on professional performance.
  It is proposed that a doctor should be allowed to go through the remedial process up to three times—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) about how long the matter can be perpetuated—but it is not proposed that the number should be prescribed in the rules. The doctor will have the right to have the matter determined by the committee on professional performance at any time following the first assessment.
  The committee on professional performance is, indeed, the committee of last resort. The General Medical Council hopes that most cases will be resolved during the consensual part of the procedures. The matters will come to the committee, however, in a number of ways: first, where the screener on receiving an assessment report considers that the doctor's performance is irremediable and the doctor has not agreed to the voluntary removal of his name from the register; and, secondly, where the doctor has not co-operated right from the start or has indeed withdrawn co-operation during the process. The doctor may, for instance, have been directed to undergo an assessment by the assessment referral committee and refused to do so.
  Thirdly, the matter will come before the CPP where the doctor has undergone an assessment but is not prepared to agree to the required conditions. The doctor may refer the case to the committee. If the screener cannot get the doctor to agree to the conditions, the case must be referred to the committee. The final way is following a period of remedial action and reassessment, where there has been no significant improvement in the doctor's performance.
  The procedures to be followed by the committee will be set out in rules. If the doctor has not undergone an assessment, the committee may require it. If he refuses or has failed to co-operate in some other way, the committee will be able to impose sanctions. Those include suspension or attachment of conditions to registration as appropriate. Where the committee, however, finds that the doctor's professional performance has been seriously deficient, it will be able to suspend the doctor or attach conditions on registration. For example, the doctor may be required to practise under the supervision of another doctor or refrain from performing a particular clinical procedure.
  Where the committee considers it necessary for the protection of the public, it may impose immediate suspension of the doctor. The Bill will ensure that the doctor has appeal rights, which are similar to those which exist under the health procedures.
  Mr. John Gunnell: In the hearings held by the General Medical Council at the moment, which are obviously, in general, about professional misconduct, the press are normally present. I have seen nothing in the Bill to show whether the press
  680
  should or should not be present or whether the decision at which the committee arrives will be made public. At this stage, is the knowledge of the procedure and the result of the hearings entirely within the remit of the GMC?
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is the intention that such hearings should be held in private—certainly for the first two years. That is subject to review and, indeed, it is also possible, with agreement, that such matters could be heard in public. Again, the committee may wish to discuss that in more detail. The proposal that for the first two years the procedures are held in private while they are under way has considerable merit.
  As the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) will know, there are always difficulties about how freely, frankly and openly some witnesses are prepared to speak in the full glare of publicity and the press. There is often a tension between wishing matters to be fully open, but knowing that witnesses are somewhat inhibited because they know that every word that they say is likely to be read in the newspapers the following day. The proposal is a considered preliminary response to the new procedures and I am sure that it will be subject to review and careful scrutiny.
  If I may turn to the Bill itself, the House will be pleased to know that it is short; it has six clauses. It will give the GMC the necessary powers to make the new procedures work where a doctor is not co-operating and the powers to impose sanctions. Much of it amends the Medical Act 1983. I have placed in the Library a revision of the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act as they would appear on consolidation of the Bill in that Act. The details of the procedures to be followed by the GMC will, as I have said, be in rules.
  Clause 1 deals with the powers of the committee on professional performance, which has been described as the sanctions committee. It will be empowered to impose conditions on, or suspend, a doctor's registration. It will do so where the doctor's standard of professional performance is found to have been seriously deficient and the committee considers that sanctions should be applied to protect the public.
  It is not the intention that the sanctions should be punitive. They are part of improving the service to patients. Although, in the worst cases, a doctor might be suspended indefinitely, the name will not be erased—doctors will not be struck off. That is a fine, but an importance distinction to make, as the intention of the procedures is remedial. The committee can also impose sanctions if a doctor has failed to co-operate with the assessment process.
  Clause 2 covers cases in which a doctor's failings may be considered to be beyond remedial action. The doctor may be asked to consider voluntary removal from the register. Again, the doctor would not be struck off, which has disciplinary overtones. The doctor might be falling behind with the latest medical techniques, which have now become the accepted techniques. The doctor might realise that it is time to call it a day and ask to be removed from the register.
  We realise that unscrupulous doctors might use the provisions of voluntary removal to frustrate active consideration of their performance. To minimise the risk of the misuse of the provision, clause 2 also provides for

  681
  the matter to be referred back to the relevant committee for approval, should the doctor apply at a later date for his name to be reinstated on the register.
  Much of the meat of the Bill is contained in the schedule, which gives the General Medical Council the power to make rules, to set up the assessment referral committee and the committee on professional performance, and to provide for the constitution and proceedings of the two committees and the assessment panels. The rules will also give the committee on professional performance powers to impose sanctions if a doctor does not co-operate, and to give the doctor a right of appeal to the High Court where such sanctions have been made.
  The assessment panel will be given powers to inspect medical records and, where entry to professional premises is likely to be denied, it will be able to apply to a magistrate for a warrant. It will be an offence for a person to obstruct the work of an assessment panel.
  The House will appreciate that the procedures introduced by the Bill are somewhat complex. Its aim is simple enough, however. It is a further measure designed to improve the quality of service available to patients from the national health service, and indeed from private practice, and to ensure that they continue to enjoy the highest standards of care from our doctors. It is significant that the Bill has come from the medical profession. It is a sign of how clinicians are responding to the greater expectations made of them and recognising the legitimacy of challenges against the performance of individuals.
  There was a time, perhaps, when the profession would not have been so amenable to such a proposition. We can all understand the reasons. The process of scrutiny and review is not always comfortable for doctors, even for those who have nothing to fear from its results. It is, however, an essential part of a service in which we are determined to put the needs of patients first and to maintain their confidence in the service that they receive.
  What is important is that the procedures are effective, constructive and fair to staff, as well as to patients. The measures in the Bill fit well with those objectives. They are part of our commitment to a higher-quality health service of which we can all be proud.
  The introduction of the Bill to Parliament gives a clear signal to doctors whose performance is not up to standard that the remedy is in their hands—it is a case of physician heal thyself. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to the Dispatch box voluntarily—I was beginning to think that she did not like coming here—and so soon after her interview with Mr. Dimbleby.
  You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just before the recess, the House—not just the Opposition, but members of the Government—was demanding time to debate the crisis facing the hospital service, especially in London. I should have thought that, now that the Conservative rebels have come back to the fold, it would be safe for the Government to find time for such a debate,
  682
  but they tell us that there are pressures on parliamentary time. They have found a whole day to debate this Bill, however.
  The principles that underpin the Bill are not controversial between the parties. The parliamentary Labour party supports the Bill, as do the minority parties, I understand. There is a consensus behind the principles that underpin it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) promised it a fair wind through the House in the debate on the Queen's Speech. Indeed, in 1993, my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), among others, tried to introduce a Bill designed to achieve the same objectives, so the Secretary of State is perhaps making too much of the courage and determination that the Government are showing by bringing this legislation before us.
  The Government Whips seemed nervous about exposing the Secretary of State to debate in the House. One of the first—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. On the first day back after the recess, we had a very successful Health Question Time. All the Government spokesmen wiped the floor with the Opposition spokesmen, who were described in the press as hiding like frightened rabbits, devoid of policy. They were simply exposed for their empty cupboard by all the journalists.
  Mr. Brown: What press?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The Guardian, The Economist, the Observer and the Health Service Journal. I have never known such a slaughter of the Opposition for their lack of policy on the health front—timid, frightened and devoid of policy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I need to say more.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Certainly not. That was quite a long intervention. Before we go any further, perhaps we could turn to the principles of the Bill, which is the business before us.
  Mr. Brown: I was about to debate the principles of the Bill when I generously, in a bipartisan spirit, gave way to the Secretary of State and allowed her to mislead the House. The truth of the matter is that, when I asked the Minister of State for the estimated cost for local pay bargaining at Health Question Time, he spoke at some length in response, but never gave the House the estimates. No doubt he would describe that as professionalism on his part, but I think that the House understood what he was not telling us.
  Let me return to the point that I was going to make before I so generously—but perhaps wrongly in view of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker—gave way. One of the first duties that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South had when we were appointed to our new Front-Bench responsibilities was to meet representatives from the General Medical Council. They urged this Bill on the parliamentary Opposition and said that the Government had told them two things—that they could have the Bill, but that there was not enough parliamentary time for it and so they had to get the agreement of the Opposition to ensure that it received a fair wind through the House.

  683
  How can anyone truthfully say that, in this Parliament, there is not the parliamentary time for a Bill of this nature, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have enough parliamentary time in this Parliament to revise the entire criminal code. One could not possibly truthfully say that there is a lack of parliamentary time. No doubt the reason why we have a full day's debate on this relatively non-controversial matter is that the Government want to avoid debating more controversial matters. The Bill and its underpinning principles are supported by the parliamentary Labour party.
  We are being invited to discuss what is effectively professional self-regulation. In the light of some of the decisions that we had to make last week, it is ironic that we are discussing another body's methods of self-regulation. In view of what many people think about the ethics of our profession, it is ironic that we are discussing the ethics of a profession that is held in higher esteem by the general public than ours.
  The core of the Bill is self-regulation. Only the General Medical Council has a universal power to restrict a doctor's practice, or bar him or her from practice altogether. No national health authority or trust could prevent a doctor from taking up employment elsewhere, either in the health service or privately.
  The General Medical Council is a statutory body. It is independent of Government and receives no public funding. It is financed by a levy on registered doctors and, interestingly, is answerable to the Privy Council, not to the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State told us, the GMC currently has two sets of disciplinary procedures. The first deals with conduct—doctors whose behaviour suggests that they may be unfit to practise. It can deal only with single acts of serious professional misconduct, which was the point made in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). The second set of disciplinary procedures deals with doctors whose health may affect their fitness to practise.
  To date, unless it has been found that a doctor's fitness to practise has been seriously impaired by ill-health, or unless a doctor has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct or convicted of a criminal offence, the GMC has no power to act against an individual practitioner. That is a substantial cause of public disquiet. The profession's failure to regulate itself because it does not have the powers to do so is unfair on complainants and, of course, on those charged with the supervision of the profession.
  In 1993–94, the General Medical Council received 1,626 complaints. Of those, only 195 made it beyond the preliminary screeners and only 83 cases were referred to the professional conduct committee for investigation. Clearly, that is unsatisfactory and it is right that we should consider remedial legislation.
  The reason for not proceeding with complaints is often that the General Medical Council's powers are too restricted. That is the issue with which the Bill seeks to deal. The Bill will add a third set of procedures, which will provide powers to discipline doctors whose general performance over a period of time is revealed as seriously flawed. The Bill will allow the GMC to exercise discipline
  "in those situations where a doctor's pattern of professional performance appears to be 'seriously deficient'—in other words, so blatantly poor that patents are potentially at risk".
  684
  Before dealing with some of the issues of detail, which we shall explore in Committee if we cannot get a response from the Minister tonight, may I raise a procedural point? The Order Paper contains a proposition to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee and I understand that the question can be put forthwith at the end of the debate. The idea is that, instead of the normal adversarial way of proceeding in Committee, where one side puts its inquiries and it is hoped that the Minister or Secretary of State, if she is to serve on the Committee—it would be nice to see her do so—answers the questions. The alternative procedure is to sit in a forum where specialist witnesses—presumably from the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association and patient groups—can give their informed opinions to the Committee, which, having heard their advice, can then make decisions on the issues.
  In principle, that procedure has much to recommend it. When I was a member of the Labour party's Treasury team, I argued that the Finance Bill could be better dealt with if some of the specialist issues were taken in such a forum rather than in Standing Committee. I do not know the Government's attitude to the procedure, but if they decide to adopt it for a Bill that is, in principle, not contentious, in a spirit of consensus and co-operation the Opposition will co-operate fully with it. I hope that, in so saying, I put a persuasive argument to the Minister of State who, I suspect, will take the Bill through its Committee stage.
  We shall want to explore issues such as the Bill's structure. It has been argued that it might have been better to adopt a structure that was, essentially, put forward in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friends in 1993, which would have modified the rules for serious professional misconduct in such a way that serious under-performance would be deemed to be serious professional misconduct, rather than to introduce a third new procedure. Although there are arguments on both sides, I prefer to explore the rights and wrongs of the two different ways of proceeding with professionals than to argue it out with Ministers in an adversarial setting in Committee. The Minister will, no doubt, argue that what has been done in the Bill is right and could not possibly be done in any other way. I am not sure that that is true and I should like to listen to professional specialist opinion.
  I should also like to explore with the Minister whether it is realistic to think that a doctor whose performance has been so persistently bad that he is putting patients at risk could ever be reformed by retraining. The Bill puts a great deal of emphasis on training and retraining, but there will come a time when no amount of retraining will achieve the required result and, sooner or later, someone will have to say that. I want assurance that the procedures will do so.
  The assessment referral panel—the body that can require doctors to undergo assessment—will meet in private. The Secretary of State said that there were good reasons for that, and I understand them. However, it is an important principle that justice, as well as being done, must be seen to be done. Complainants will have no right to ask for a public hearing and I should like to test the arguments on whether that should be so. Obviously, I understand what the Secretary of State said, but countervailing arguments deserve to be explored.

  685
  The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the three Members of the House who serve on the GMC as lay members. I suspect that it is not widely known that serving in that capacity involves all three of them in a lot of hard work. Their contribution to public service should be commended and I endorse what the Secretary of State said.
  The Bill will require an increasing lay involvement in the General Medical Council's affairs. The Patients Association, among other organisations, has properly expressed concerns about the training of lay members of the GMC assessment panels. It is important that lay members are properly trained and have experience in handling patients' complaints. The history of the involvement of the laity under the Conservative party's management of the national health service has not been untainted or unencumbered with criticism. I hope that we can achieve a laity for this function which is absolutely beyond criticism or the suggestion of being tainted with party-political partisanship. That could not be said about the laity in the rest of the national health service.
  The Committee will want to explore with the Minister its concerns about the tremendous power of the initial GMC screener to sideline serious complaints, or at least to assess their importance. The screener will have an important role in either accelerating complaints through the complaints procedure or delaying consideration of them. Justice delayed is justice denied, which is precisely the issue that we are trying to remedy. So some attention to the role of the screener acting on behalf of the GMC is important.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill allows voluntary removal from the register. I wonder whether that will allow errant doctors to remove themselves from the register rather than face up to the charges brought against them. If they behave in such a way, will they then be able to request reinstatement later? I should like to explore further with the Minister precisely how voluntary removal will interact with the other proposed procedures.
  The Patients Association is not alone in suggesting that a system of regular compulsory reaccreditation should be introduced as an effective means of weeding out incompetent doctors. I shall not give a view on that proposition now, but that idea is worth exploring, alongside the other provisions in the Bill. Whichever arrangements we adopt for the Committee, I hope that we will be able to do just that.
  The BMA has expressed concern that, under the new system, general practitioners will have to pay for their own retraining. The Opposition want to explore the cost implications of that with the Minister. I believe that a possible inequity could be created if GPs have to pay for their own retraining while doctors who are employed by hospital trusts, or junior doctors employed by the regional department of the Department of Health—if I understand the Health Authorities Bill aright—will have their retraining paid for them.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am concerned about equivalence. To what extent does my hon. Friend agree or disagree that doctors are being considered differently in terms of their performance in comparison with the way in which other professional bodies consider the performance of their members? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could be judged overgenerous and to
  686
  be bending over backwards to the medical profession, given the extent to which the GMC may go to protect doctors from removal from the register? That is at odds with the way in which the performance of teachers, lawyers, accountants and other professionals is dealt with. Is my hon. Friend happy that a even hand has been dealt across the professions?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, who speaks from experience as he serves on the GMC, makes an important point. I am absolutely certain that the principle underpinning the Bill is right. We are introducing a new procedure, so only time will tell how it works in practice. I would not want to do the Bill an injustice before giving the provisions contained in it a chance to operate. I accept, however, that the Bill creates an anomaly, given the way in which one professional group is treated as opposed to another.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): In response to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), as I understand it from the GMC, it is not the purpose of the legislation to seek to remove doctors from the register. That is the sanction of final resort. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the purpose of the Bill is to provide proper opportunities for retraining so that matters can be put right and people can be put back on the proper professional course. I am not certain whether one can make an analogy across the professions. I know from my own profession—at least when I practised it 10 years ago—that there was a continuing system of post-qualifying education. That example may serve as an analogy, but it need not be the case that the professions are on all fours with each other.
  Mr. Brown: The Minister seems to have taken the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and put it back to him. I shall say something later about the anomalies that the Bill is creating between different professions inside the health service. It should be possible to obtain a commitment in principle from the Government at least about the professions inside the NHS.
  Mr. Gunnell: The argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who serves on the GMC, is strengthened by our call for a general social services council and a general teaching council, which would run on the same lines as the GMC. We believe that the GMC functions well and that it would be to the benefit of other professions and the public if similar arrangements applied to teaching and social work.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right. The Bill is underpinned by the concept of professional self-regulation. The Bill places emphasis on retraining rather than immediate disciplinary sanctions. The Secretary of State and I have expressed some concern, however, about whether the emphasis on retraining, further retraining and yet more retraining might not be overgenerous to the medical profession. It would be better to wait to see how the Bill works in practice rather than fail to give it the fair wind it was promised in the Queen's Speech.
  The Minister spoke about the internal arrangements governing his own profession. As I understand it, an allowance is paid for the postgraduate education of GPs. They receive £2,000 a year for undertaking 30 hours or

  687
  more of approved study a year. Some concern has been expressed about how that system operates in practice, and whether there are any sanctions against doctors who do not undertake that 30 hours of study. I should like to explore that in Committee, because I do not expect the Minister to offer an opinion on that on Second Reading.
  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting investigates cases of misconduct. The GMC, however, only investigates cases of serious professional misconduct. The Bill will allow it to consider cases of seriously poor performance. The nurses' professional body will, therefore, still have a wider remit than the GMC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has said, the Bill creates an anomaly between the powers of the GMC and the powers of other health care professional registration bodies.
  The GMC currently investigates cases according to the key test of serious professional misconduct—to be amended by the Bill—as do the General Optical Council and the General Dental Council. The nurses council investigates cases of misconduct, so it obviously adopts a wider criterion than that adopted by the GMC. The Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine investigates cases according to its test of infamous conduct in a professional respect. I suspect that it is difficult to prove that and that that test is overdue for review. The osteopathic and chiropractic organisations investigate cases of unacceptable professional conduct. I understand that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society investigates cases of misconduct, but I may be wrong about that. I am, however, fairly certain about the other bodies that I have mentioned.
  The practice adopted by the respective councils is anomalous, so when the Minister replies to the debate perhaps he can tell us whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation so that the procedures governing other health care professional registration bodies are brought into line with those now proposed for the GMC. It seems anomalous that one professional body should decide to launch an investigation according to one test, while other professional bodies that deal with related health care functions act according to a more serious test. I am sure that the Minister has given that matter extensive consideration, or at least someone has, and that the hon. Gentleman will have a response ready for the end of the debate.
  Perhaps it is right to give the last word to the chairman of the BMA; after all, he represents health care professionals. In September 1993 he said:
  "We need to retain the full confidence and trust of our patients. But we must remember that the Government can play a significant part in all this by reducing stress, raising morale, instilling realistic patient expectations, listening to the profession's concerns about the reforms and ensuring a consensus approach to the problems facing us."
  I endorse every word of that.
  It is ironic that on a day when the BMA, representing junior doctors, wins a case in the courts concerning the stress connected with junior doctors' hours of work, we are considering legislation on professional standards. It does not sit easily for the House to expect doctors, especially junior doctors, to work very long hours and still, at the end of those long hours, perform to the highest professional standards. The fact that on the whole they do so is a great credit to the profession.
  688
  The ethical base of the national health service is its foundation and its enduring strength. It is its ethical base that has enabled it at least to come through, if not wholly to survive, the Government's health reform agenda. I support the Bill, but perhaps not quite in the same spirit as the Secretary of State.
  5.11 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I have read the Bill, and the papers pertaining to it, with great care, and I have several questions in my mind about the effects of the legislation. We all rely on the excellent service that we receive from the research department of the Library, and I turned with great interest to the research paper on the Bill that that Department produced.
  On page 4 of the paper I saw encapsulated the reason for the Bill:
  "To date, unless it has been found that a doctor's fitness to practise has been seriously impaired by ill health, or unless a doctor has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct or convicted of a criminal offence, then the General Medical Council has no power to act against an individual practitioner. In particular, the GMC is not at present able to act either where a doctor's professional competence in general is shown to be inadequate, but no single act has been committed which could constitute 'serious professional misconduct', or where a single act has indeed been committed, but is not judged to constitute 'serious professional misconduct"'.
  "So," thought I, "that is what the Bill is about, is it? I see. That is very interesting." I agreed that there was clearly a need for the Bill. However, when I turned to the Bill itself, twice in the first two paragraphs of the explanatory and financial memorandum I saw the phrase "seriously deficient". So the measure refers not to a slight problem but to practice that is seriously deficient.
  As every Member of the House with any experience knows, the nub of a Bill is always in clause 1—and in the first few lines of clause 1 the term "seriously deficient" appears again. So I come to my first question: how is it to be decided whether a performance is "seriously deficient", and is not such practice covered to some extent by the GMC already? If so, does the Bill not seek to do something that will not happen?
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) deserves great credit for consistency, in that he has worried about the problem for a long time and has introduced no fewer than six private Members' Bills on the subject. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one instance that made him anxious—the case of a child in his constituency who had died of meningitis after his GP could not be bothered to examine him. Apparently the GMC found the facts to be proven but, amazingly to me, it felt that the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. If that is not serious professional misconduct, it is difficult to think what would be.
  There is clearly a case to be made that we should go wider than the present powers of the GMC. No doubt we shall hear later the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell); they are both members of that body. But there is certainly a case that we should go further than the GMC can go at present.
  However, I am worried because the Bill confines its attention to "seriously deficient" performance, and we still have to ask whether it is considered seriously deficient if

  689
  a doctor feels too busy and cannot be bothered to examine a patient, who subsequently dies. My first question is: on what ground do we decide what is seriously deficient?
  Would the doctor's behaviour have to result in death? Bearing in mind the case that I have described, perhaps that criterion would not be enough. Or, as some of the community health councils would have it, are there many lesser evils being perpetrated by doctors that should be dealt with at once? Not long ago, a questionnaire was sent to patients of a practice asking whether the magazines in the waiting room were up to date or whether they were dog-eared and had been used too much, and also whether the car park was sufficient for all the patients. I would not call failings in that respect seriously deficient, and I am sure that they are not what the Bill is intended to address. One sometimes needs to watch what the community health councils get up to with the money that they are allocated.
  I wonder whether language inability would count as seriously deficient. A great many doctors have come to us from other countries, and there is no doubt that they serve the health service well. But patients often need to describe their condition using nuances of language that a doctor insufficiently competent in the English language cannot comprehend. Will that come under the same heading?
  Page 7 of the Library research document tells us that the procedures
  "will not be confrontational like the conduct procedures, but will rather resemble the health procedures, in which only cases where a doctor has refused help actually go before the formal Committee."
  I should like to know what that means, and how cases will come before the committee.
  We have heard a lot about retraining, and I understand that to mean retraining for doctors who are providing a seriously deficient service. But I am not sure whether retraining will help in the cases that some of us have in mind. Suppose, for instance, that a doctor were, as we describe it in the House, "tired and emotional". Suppose that he did not treat his patient properly because of his weariness and his emotional state—helped, perhaps, by gazing upon the wine when it was a little too red. How could one retrain someone in a case such as that?
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: It might help the hon. Lady if I said that perhaps such a case would be referred to the health committee, not the professional competence committee.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows, as a medical man, some of the problems that confront us here. However, I am trying to find out precisely what the Bill will do, precisely which cases it will affect and the precise way in which those cases will be handled.
  When I first read the Bill, I wondered—and I hope that I may be right about this—whether, if the object of the Bill was achieved, it would avoid, or at least lessen, the ruinous and expensive business of litigation involving doctors. That is growing, without any doubt, and the implications are extremely serious. One has only to consider the United States to be aware of how very damaging it is for members of the medical profession. It is damaging because of the huge costs of medical
  690
  insurance. I understand from friends of mine in the medical profession that that is now beginning in earnest in Britain. Let no one here suppose that I am over-emphasising that.
  I am assured that American doctors must set aside an enormous sum in insurance payments to indemnify themselves, and things are already moving in that direction in Britain. Slick lawyers in America actually follow ambulances, or comb the sensational press for horror stories of patients, who may perhaps be used to start litigation.
  In addition to cost, there is an extra burden of worry for the doctor when the threat of litigation hangs over him. Does the call in the middle of the night really involve a serious condition? Mrs. Jones has phoned for no real reason on numerous occasions. Will she sue me if I do not get up, get dressed and go and see her now? How am I to know how bad her condition is?
  It is in the interests of good doctors, who make up the overwhelming majority of the profession, that machinery should be in place whereby the tiny minority of bad doctors may be brought to book for wider reasons than those that are available at present. After all, doctors have an immense power over people's lives, and we should not forget that. We should recognise that what they say to their patients and the way in which they treat their patients can have a wide effect on patients' lives.
  Subsection (9) of clause 1 states:
  "While a person's registration in the register is suspended by virtue of this section he shall be treated as not being registered in the register notwithstanding that his name still appears in it."
  I read that two or three times, with increasing puzzlement. The name will not be removed from the register, but one will have to pretend that it is not there. How will people know that it is invisible when it is visible? That is a trick that I have not yet managed to solve.
  I realise that it might be jolly expensive to remove names and replace them after a time, but surely we could have little stickers or something. Let us suppose that a doctor has been removed from the register technically, but not actually, and that he goes away and applies for a job as a locum, hundreds of miles away. When the doctors who are considering employing him consult the register and find that his name appears on it, how will they know that he is not really there, if he does not tell them?
  I do not understand how that will work.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I believe that the hon. Lady and I share anxieties regarding clause 1(9), because it is strange that it says:
  "While a person's registration in the register is suspended by virtue of this section he shall be treated as not being registered in the register notwithstanding that his name still appears in it."
  As the hon. Lady rightly says, unless some sign is given that will be understood by anyone who has access to the register, it may be difficult to know the status of that doctor.
  Mr. Galbraith rose—
  Dame Jill Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
  Mr. Galbraith: I understand that, when one seeks a job, one must oneself provide evidence of one's registration. It is not checked up on. That would not be

  691
  provided to one by the General Medical Council if one was not registered, even though one's name was on the register.
  Dame Jill Knight: That may be the case. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand how it would work in the case of a doctor who wanted temporary employment while perhaps he was debarred from practice in his own part of the country. I am still by no means sure that that subsection quite makes sense. I want to know a little more about the way in which it will work.
  I also want to know whether the patient would make the complaint. If not, who would it be? That does not appear to be mentioned. If the doctor were on a practice list, would he be barred from practising or would he receive retraining only? I am not sure about that. How long would he or she have to wait for a verdict?
  I confess, I would much prefer that something were done in the Bill to speed up what I consider to be a terrible way of conducting a specific part of the disciplinary procedure, when a surgeon or doctor is accused of a serious offence. No fewer than three such cases have been brought to my knowledge, one by a constituent. He was an anaesthetist who was accused of misconduct during an operation, and he waited for three solid years for the verdict to be reached. All that time, he was paid his full salary and stayed at home, doing absolutely nothing.
  I am worried about that. I have mentioned the subject in the House previously, and I regard it as a matter of immense concern, not least because of the money wasted to the health service by that type of thing.
  It is also devastating for the accused person, such as the constituent whom I mentioned. Granted, he received his full pay—which he did not want to take because he said, "I am not earning this." However, the matter worried his wife so much that she subsequently became ill and died. In the end, he was found not guilty. How in heaven's name can we deny quick justice and a quick verdict in cases such as that?
  I know that it must be a difficult matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but because of the waste of money as well as the waste of a man's work and the effect on that man and his family, I should dearly have liked to read in the Bill about a speed-up of the means by which a verdict could be reached in cases of that nature.
  The aim of the Bill is excellent. I understand exactly why it came into being. I am sure that it is meant to be, and will be when it has been through Committee, one more improving step for the health service.
  Since I have been in the House—in fairly recent years—the patients charter has come into force. In my region, there has been an incredible reduction in waiting lists, which has served my constituents and the people of my area brilliantly. The health service that we see around us has never been so good and has never treated so many people so well, with so many complicated operations, treatments and drugs. We should be thankful for that.
  However, I know that my right hon. Friend's constant anxiety is to improve, improve, improve, all the time. That is the intention behind the Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend will not mind that I asked her questions which I feel must be answered if the Bill is to achieve its aim.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: It was that wise old Scot, Adam Smith, who said that when two or three were gathered together a conspiracy was waiting to happen. I take a more pessimistic view of the Bill and of the idea of self-regulation than my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Self-regulation is nothing more than institutionalised conspiracy. That is not a specific point in relation to doctors, but a general point that we have to wrestle with in the Bill and elsewhere. Any system of rules must be capable of clear and robust implementation. The terms used to support the system of rules must be capable of being clearly understood, both by those who use the rules for their benefit and by those who apply the rules.
  Rules cannot be adequately measured by the kilo or the cubic metre. The Bill lays down complex procedures. It provides a tangled framework which will create yet more conventions and practices, but it does not give us the clear definitions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was rightly trying to establish. What is "serious"? The Bill takes us no further forward: it simply repeats the entirely inadequate terms of the existing structure of rules. It compounds the uncertainty by this time attaching the word "serious", not to misconduct, but to deficient performance. That will confuse the issue still further.
  There is no focus behind the system of rules because there is no clarity on the definition of "serious". What is a serious failure of professional performance? The Bill simply does not tell us. It uses the phrase and introduces the concept into our procedures, but it provides no clarity about what it means. In that respect, it is a classic product of self-regulation. Self-regulation will always seek to multiply and mystify. When we add to the idea of serious professional misconduct the concept of a seriously deficient performance, the result is precisely that multiplication and mystification.
  The Bill does not offer openness: it offers the promise of openness, which is entirely different. The seven potential stages of inquiry, assessment and counselling before the professional performance committee even meets provide further grounds for multiplication, mystification and uncertainty for everyone involved. That provides the maximum opportunity for old-boy networks—or, indeed, old-girl networks—to come into force.
  Lest anyone should think that I am being unduly pessimistic, I shall quote at length—because it is powerful stuff—an article in the British Medical Journal which was written by the chief executive of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. Professor Liam Donaldson, who is a distinguished doctor—
  Mr. Malone: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the article, I cannot let pass without comment the assertion that phrases such as "serious deficiency" show that there is a conspiracy. Which tests in any legislation governing the law of England, Scotland or Wales are not capable of a number of interpretations? The hon. Gentleman suggests that such standards are unusual, but I suggest that they are not. There is nothing unusual in including such a test, which has to be subject to interpretation, in a Bill of this kind.
  Mr. Cousins: The Minister makes a proper and fair point. To guide us as to what constitutes serious

  693
  professional misconduct under the existing disciplinary procedures, the General Medical Council's blue book advances several different tests. Some of them, such as not advertising doctors' services, are happily practical. That is the sort of wonderfully practical and specific measure that one always finds in such cases. The 39 articles of the Church of England contain the marvellous phrase, "Cursed be he who moves his neighbour's landmark." Among the greatest mystifications, practical matters can intervene. But the main test in the blue book is as follows:
  "Neglect or disregard by doctors of their professional responsibilities to patients for their care and treatment".
  I invite the Minister to consider how that can be clearly distinguished as a test from any definition which could be given of seriously deficient professional performance. There is a problem.
  Let us return to the thoughts of Professor Donaldson. I shall quote from his article extensively because it is so illuminating. One section of the article is called, "Closing Ranks". It states:
  "Among managers I found general resentment arising from the perception that doctors are so heavily protected and that they seem to be privileged compared with other groups of staff…doctors' colleagues were often willing to report concerns confidentially and informally"
  but
  "they were extremely reluctant to go on the record. Some considered that this would amount to disloyalty"
  and others feared legal action. He continues:
  "The most difficult and time consuming cases to resolve were those in which a doctor's attitude and behaviour were disruptive or highly unreasonable. So serious did this become in some of the cases I describe that clinical departments were almost brought to a standstill. The resulting poor communication, the absence of teamwork, the atmosphere of hostility, and the poor morale could not, in my view, have been other than detrimental to patient care."
  Those are the words of a regional chief executive, who has used the procedures available to him and been entirely unable to resolve those problems.
  Professor Donaldson continues:
  "Judgments about poor attitude and unreasonable behaviour are difficult to convert into evidence which could sustain an action for professional misconduct or incompetence."
  He continues in a way that is relevant to the procedures advanced in the Bill. He states:
  "In several cases the problems remained and were little improved by the process of investigation and counselling."
  That is the authoritative voice of a man who has sought to examine many cases in which precisely the issues to be covered by the Bill would have been involved.
  Professor Donaldson concludes:
  "My experience of dealing with problem doctors"—
  that is the regional chief executive's phrase, not mine—
  "over many years leads me to reflect that it is difficult, distasteful, time consuming, and acrimonious work. For these reasons the temptation to avert one's gaze from these problems is at times very great. Add to this the nature of the present NHS disciplinary procedures and I have no doubt that many employers do look away when they should not."
  He goes on to throw some doubt on whether the terms of the Bill will be adequate to deal with the problems that he recognises. His summary is that the procedures within the NHS are inadequate to deal with serious professional problems of that kind.
  694
  I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but in order to throw some light on the matter and to see, not how the rules can be laid down, but how they can be policed, I wish to share with the House one of my own experiences. I tried to discover whether a particular surgical procedure used in relation to an unpleasant sort of cancer affecting women could be carried out without the benefit of histological confirmation by biopsy. The treatment involves radical surgery and its effects are mutilating.
  In my attempts to investigate the matter, it took me six months to extract a letter from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The letter states:
  "All clearly state that"—
  the particular sort of cancer which I do not want to name—
  "should be confirmed by biopsy prior to surgical treatment. Whilst the College Council have not discussed this topic, on a personal basis I would not do"—
  the procedure—
  "without histological confirmation of the cancer."
  However, such treatment could possibly be given because the royal college has no policing mechanisms in place.
  I put the same point to the Royal College of Surgeons. Sir Norman Browse, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, replied:
  "The view of this College and of myself personally is that no treatment should be offered a patient—especially any form of mutilating surgery—without full knowledge of the diagnosis. This implies that histological diagnosis should be obtained in all cases, whenever possible, before proceeding to surgery. I do not think there are any surgeons in the UK who would perform"—
  the procedure is then named—
  "without histological confirmation of the diagnosis."
  Again, there is no acceptance of responsibility for policing.
  I then contacted the General Medical Council to discover whether, within the terms of its disciplinary procedures, it is responsible for policing. It replied that it did not fall
  "to the GMC to advise doctors on matters of clinical practice in specific situations. This is a function of the Royal Colleges".
  But the royal colleges themselves say that they are not prepared to exercise that policing function.
  It is a grim and sorry state of affairs when we cannot establish whether such radical, potentially mutilating surgery can be carried out on women only when confirmed by biopsy or achieve a situation in which such a procedure can be established. That must rank—potentially, if it were proved—as a matter of serious concern.
  Indeed, the matter raises serious issues of patients' rights in terms of informed consent because the NHS management executive's rules, which I wholly support and endorse, indicate that patients should have such rights. Unfortunately, the responsibility for informing patients of the procedures to be carried out on them lies with the doctors and surgeons themselves. We are going around in circles because there is no procedure in the NHS which can fulfil that requirement.
  I understand that a case involving precisely that issue has been laid before the GMC, and there it has remained for many months. I accept that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but it is an important test of the concepts of serious misconduct and serious deficiencies in

  695
  professional performance. If we are to discover what "serious" really means, issues such as the one that I have raised should themselves be taken seriously.
  I hope that the Bill will advance a new channel for clarifying those issues and I look forward to the proceedings of the Committee.
  Mr. Malone: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I should make it clear that the GMC has made it public that it will look at the definition of "serious" and will set that matter out in clearer guidance.
  The hon. Gentleman is making a bit much of the suggestion that we are engaged in some sort of conspiracy. When three are gathered together, it might be a conspiracy. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the GMC is some sort of conspiracy? When 102 are gathered together and 54 of them are doctors appointed by the royal college and 13 are lay people nominated by the Privy Council, I suggest that that would be quite a conspiracy. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's theory holds.
  Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to the Minister, but I remind him of the news bulletins this morning. Adam Smith was probably rather cynical and pessimistic. Two or three might be thought to be a pessimistic view of a conspiracy, but seven or nine is clearly sufficient.
  These are matters which cannot be overlooked. If the Minister is right that the bedrock concept behind the existing procedures and the new ones advanced in the Bill is the concept of "serious", a definition should be available to the House now and should form and guide part of the discussions on the Bill itself. The same request has been made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston and it goes to the heart of the matter.
  I do not say that hon. Members are involved in a conspiracy, although presumably in other parts of our lives we can be, but unless the concept of "serious" is clarified for the Bill and for the existing concept of serious professional misconduct, we are no further forward in establishing the clarity, robustness and openness necessary to enable people to be clear about their rights, responsibilities and duties and for those rights, responsibilities and duties to be properly policed and enforced.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) who raised a number of points with which I have some sympathy. Indeed, in the past year, I have had some correspondence and discussions on minimal invasive surgery and the relationship between the General Medical Council and the royal colleges, but I am not sure how far those issues impinge on this relatively narrow Bill. No doubt we will have the opportunity to explore them on another occasion.
  Before I go any further, I should declare an interest as a member of the General Medical Council. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her kind remarks earlier in the debate, but I must also declare an interest in the conventional House of Commons sense in that, as is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, I receive an honorarium from the GMC in recognition of my work as a lay screener, to which I shall refer later.
  I suspect that most of our constituents are pretty hazy as to exactly what the GMC is, what it does and what the difference is between the GMC and the British Medical
  696
  Association. As recently as last Thursday in the privileges debate, a distinguished and senior hon. Member, while floating the idea of professional self-regulation among Members of Parliament, twice referred to the BMA and its control over doctors.
  Of course, the BMA is a trade union of professional people, which doctors are free to join or not as they wish. It is not comparable with the GMC, which was, as we have heard, set up by statute. If I may just correct the figures that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health inadvertently gave a few moments ago, I think that I am correct in saying that, of its 102 members, 54 are elected by their fellow doctors, 35 are appointed by the royal colleges and universities and there are 13 nominated lay members.
  As we have heard, there are proposals in the pipeline to increase the lay membership. Those lay members include the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who was appointed with me to the GMC in 1989. I know that he would have wished to be here today if other commitments had not precluded that. At that time, no Labour Member was appointed, but we were pleased to be joined last autumn by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) who has already intervened in our debate.
  The key to understanding the role of the GMC is that the person who in other organisations might be described as general secretary or chief executive bears the title of registrar, for the very good reason that he is responsible for the register. It is he who keeps it, and no doctor can practise unless his name appears on that register.
  The General Medical Council lays down the curriculum for medical training and monitors the work of medical schools. It satisfies itself as to the quality of medical education and it accepts on its register only men and women with the appropriate qualifications. It also has other duties. It recognises—or refuses to recognise—medical training in some places overseas and decides whether doctors trained overseas can practise in Britain with or without conditions. Those are matters outside the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that a test known as the PLAB—Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board—test would normally ensure that doctors from overseas have a reasonable command of the English language.
  The GMC not only decides the established standards that doctors must reach before practising but is responsible for maintaining those standards. It has to deal with doctors who are brought to the council's attention because it appears that they may have fallen below the standards required.
  Cases normally reach the GMC through three routes. First, if a doctor is convicted before the courts, it is virtually automatic that the GMC will be notified, regardless of whether the charge is a fairly simple one of being drunk and disorderly, whether it is shoplifting or a murder. The second route is through the findings of local medical services committees. A doctor who is found not to have kept to the terms of his contract will be reported to the GMC.
  It is important to understand the distinction between the relationship between a doctor and his local employing hospital or health authority and the relationship between a doctor and the General Medical Council. A doctor may have been found to have broken the terms of his contract and he will have been dealt with by a local medical

  697
  services committee. Ultimately, when the decision has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, that doctor may suffer a withholding of his salary—in effect, a fine—but the circumstances in which he has broken his contract may or may not be relevant to his registration with the General Medical Council.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because we have a unique opportunity to acquire a great deal of information that is not always easily available to us. My hon. Friend referred to language. He may not be aware that there are quite a lot of complaints about difficulties with language. From what I have just heard, if a patient feels that a doctor has not understood him correctly, that patient cannot complain to the GMC because it has already been decided that the doctor can speak perfectly adequate English.
  Mr. Sims: The patient could go to the local family health services authority and say he or she is not happy with the doctor and wishes to change to a doctor with whom he or she would feel more comfortable. That would be the solution in that particular case.
  I said that there were three ways in which cases could come to the GMC—through a conviction, through the findings of a local medical services committee and through straightforward complaints from the public, from, patients or their relatives. Virtually all the conviction cases and medical service committee cases and many of the complaints from the public are passed on for consideration to the preliminary proceedings committee—a committee of the council consisting of nine medical members and two lay members, of whom I am one. One of the two lay members must be present for any matters or cases to be considered.
  We examine a range of cases, including those that involve sex and, therefore, hit the headlines, but they are a minority. An enormous range of cases comes before us. They include irresponsible prescribing, abuse of drugs, breach of confidence, inappropriate treatment and falsifying the outcome of clinical trials. It is a long list. Each case is considered most carefully by the preliminary proceedings committee. If hon. Members sometimes see me during a late sitting in the Library with a large pile of paperwork, they will know that a PPC is pending. I can assure hon. Members that great consideration is given to each case.
  When we consider a case, we can decide that it calls for no action at all. If the matter that has been raised is admitted by the doctor, we can decide that a warning or a cautionary letter in appropriate terms is appropriate, but if there is a prima facie case of serious misconduct, it is passed to the professional conduct committee, a body whose proceedings, though of a civil nature, are very much akin to the criminal courts, with similar standards of proof required.
  Anyone appearing before that committee has been charged with serious professional misconduct. There have been several queries as to what exactly that means and attempts to define it. Quite a useful definition is conduct of such a nature as to call into question whether that doctor should be allowed to continue to practise without restriction. The professional conduct committee considers all the evidence and the parties involved appear before it and are examined or cross-examined. The process is
  698
  similar to court procedures. The committee can decide to dismiss the case, that the doctor should be admonished or that the doctor should continue to practise subject to certain conditions. It can suspend the doctor for a specified period or it can erase his name from the register altogether so that he may no longer practise.
  When the preliminary proceedings committee is examining a case, it may consider that the account it has had of the events that led to that consideration brings into question the doctor's health. The doctor will then be subject to the health procedures to which reference has been made. Under those procedures, the doctor will be invited to undergo examination by other doctors who may suggest a course of treatment or certain restrictions on how he practises, the work he does, and so on. Only if he refuses those conditions or proposals will he then be subject to disciplinary procedures.
  Perhaps I could interpolate in my narrative of my work on the GMC a couple of comments. First, contrary to the general perception and the view expressed a few minutes ago, my experience is that almost without exception, doctors tend to be far harder on their own profession than I and my fellow lay members would be. Quite frequently, having examined a case, I have in mind a certain course of action and find that the doctors themselves want to take a stronger line; so it is certainly not a case of doctors protecting themselves.
  Secondly, the House is often anxious to protect people against double jeopardy. It is a matter about which we are necessarily concerned. Hon. Members will realise from what I have said that doctors constantly face a double jeopardy situation. A doctor may have been convicted and sentenced by the courts or he may be brought before a medical committee which may then find that he has breached the terms of his contract and his salary is withheld. However, that is not the end of the matter for that doctor. His activities must then be considered by the General Medical Council and his livelihood could be at risk.
  The weakness in the procedures which I have described, and of which I have been a part for the past five or six years, lies in the fact that, at the end of the day, the GMC can deal only with single incidents of serious professional misconduct. It is virtually powerless to deal with doctors who appear to be deficient in their knowledge of medicine or in their knowledge of the correct procedures for diagnosing and treating patients. The GMC cannot deal with doctors who show a lack of sensitivity or courtesy to their patients—that does not constitute serious professional misconduct.
  The Bill proposes that, when such deficiencies are revealed, there should not be formal disciplinary procedures but that steps should be taken to help to rehabilitate doctors so that, in due course, they may resume full medical practice. To that extent, the procedures proposed are akin to the health procedures which I explained briefly.
  The Bill's provisions will offer an opportunity for the doctor to consider and analyse his shortcomings and to discuss and agree with fellow professionals and a lay person a course of action that he could take to remedy those deficiencies. In most cases, he would wish to take such action in his own interests and those of his patients. The question of sanctions would arise only if the doctor concerned refused to take the steps proposed.

  699
  I have no doubt that those powers are needed. Cases have come before the preliminary proceedings committee that do not involve serious professional misconduct but suggest that the doctor is below standard. For example, in 1993 the GMC received information from a hospital expressing concern about Dr. N's level of clinical competence. The concerns were such that the hospital decided to dismiss the doctor in question, but, in the event, he tendered his resignation and sought employment elsewhere.
  The GMC requested further information about the specific incidents that had caused doubts about the doctor's competence. Although the inquiries revealed a disturbing pattern of clinical deficiencies on the part of the doctor, no specific incident was considered to amount to serious professional misconduct. Similar inquiries were made about an earlier appointment held by the doctor and about the circumstances in which he had left that post. Here, too, there was evidence of a pattern of poor performance as well as evidence that the doctor lacked insight into his deficiencies. Again, however, there was no specific evidence of behaviour by the doctor which amounted to serious professional misconduct, so the GMC was unable to intervene.
  In another case, the council received details in March 1993 of a medical service committee report involving Dr. S, who was a general practitioner. He had made a diagnosis over the telephone and he did not visit the patient at home. The patient's condition subsequently deteriorated and he was admitted to hospital where he underwent an operation for an ulcer. The medical services committee considered that the doctor had not placed himself in a position to diagnose the patient's condition properly and to treat him appropriately.
  The case was then passed to the GMC because it raised questions as to whether the doctor had been guilty of serious professional misconduct. On the basis of the evidence before it—the GMC bases its decisions only on such evidence—it was decided that it would be sufficient to send the doctor a letter of warning and advice regarding the standard of medical care which patients are entitled to expect.
  Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman's example brings us to the heart of the matter: why was it not decided that serious professional misconduct had occurred in that instance? If the case was serious enough to warrant sending a warning letter, why was it not sufficiently serious to be regarded as professional misconduct?
  Mr. Sims: I do not have all the details of the case before me, but I have explained that serious professional misconduct involves the question of whether a doctor should continue to practise. In that case it was felt that, although he had fallen short of the standards that could be reasonably expected, the question of suspending him or removing him from the register did not arise.
  Mr. Cousins: I do not wish to pursue the hon. Gentleman on this point, and I am grateful to him for giving way a second time. Does he not see that that means that the evaluation of the case was determined not according to the nature of events but by the severity of the sanction? That is precisely the kind of institutionalised self-regulation that is so dangerous in such matters.
  Mr. Sims: I do not accept that view. The case was considered carefully in the way that I have suggested and
  700
  that was the decision reached in that case. But the narrative continues, because shortly after that incident there was another medical service inquiry about the doctor's surgery hours and his provision of services to patients. In that instance, it was found that he had not complied with his contractual responsibilities but that was not serious professional misconduct.
  Shortly after that, the family health services authority wrote to the council expressing general concern about the standards of service provided by the doctor. It referred to the disorganised running of his practice and it mentioned his bad record keeping. The FHSA expressed particular concern about those matters because the doctor had persistently resisted the authority's attempts to improve his performance and to rectify his deficiencies.
  The difficulty for the council is that its disciplinary procedures are designed to deal principally with specific allegations that a doctor has behaved towards patients in a manner that may amount to serious professional misconduct. Therefore, it was not able to pursue the case. I accept that, if it had taken a different course in the first instance, things may have been different. However, the doctor's pattern of performance certainly justified intervention by the GMC, but it did not have the power to do so.
  Mr. David Congdon: I think that I understand my hon. Friend's point about the new powers in the legislation and how they will enable the council to investigate a doctor's pattern of performance and behaviour. I wonder whether he can help me on another point. When a single act is committed which falls short of serious professional misconduct but which nevertheless deserves some form of sanction, will the new powers in the Bill enable it to be investigated?
  Mr. Sims: I understand that they will not because the Bill is specifically intended to deal with cases where there has been a pattern of performance. That is the whole point of the legislation.
  Mr. Malone: Let me clarify the matter. If one specific incident showed a deficiency—it would be unlikely to be isolated, as it is more likely to be part of a pattern—it would be possible in certain circumstances for it to come within the procedures that are proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Sims: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
  I shall quote one further case, as it is a graphic example. Two years ago, a surgeon in Yorkshire made errors in his surgical practice that were so extensive that the complaints about him were subject to inquiry by the regional health authority. In its report, that RHA categorised faults, and described a minor fault as being an error which
  "although falling foul of the Bolam test is readily understandable, in the context of a busy surgical practice, and which is unlikely to be repeated."
  It went on to describe an intermediate fault as being an error
  "of serious proportions, which warrants disciplinary action, or appropriate retraining but which is not sufficient to call into question the fitness of the surgeon to continue in surgical practice, in that appropriate retraining is likely to eliminate the risk of repetition."
  It referred to a major fault as being an error
  "of such substantial proportions as to cast doubt upon the fitness of the surgeon to continue in surgical practice."

  701
  In that particular inquiry, the report found intermediate fault in the case of five patients and minor fault in four, but in none of the nine did it find major fault. The case was reported to the GMC, but it was unable to act because, in the light of that classification and the report following a detailed inquiry, there was no single incident of serious professional misconduct. Quite clearly, that surgeon should not have continued to operate. In fact, he retained his position after giving an undertaking to his employers to undergo retraining and to work for a time under supervision. But he could have chosen to leave and go elsewhere—if not practising in the NHS, then privately, without any hindrance whatever. The GMC would have been helpless. He seems to me to be a perfect candidate for the performance review procedures that we are discussing.
  Not all the complaints that come to the GMC go before the preliminary proceedings committee. Indeed, if they did, we would be overwhelmed. There is, as we have heard, a screening procedure. A medical screener—one of the doctor members of the council—considers each complaint and whether action should be called for, or whether the complaint should go forward to the preliminary proceedings committee for consideration, or he can decide that it calls for no action. Until a few years ago, a letter in those terms was then sent out.
  The president of the GMC, to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quite rightly paid tribute for the energetic and dedicated manner in which he has led the GMC for a number of years, felt that, if people were to receive a letter telling them that the GMC was taking no action over their complaint, that decision should be not only taken by a medical member but endorsed by a lay member. He asked me, therefore, whether I would accept the office of lay screener, with the task of looking at all the cases on which the council said that it was taking no action. That I did, and I looked at some 40 cases a month. Indeed, after a year or two, the president, realising the burden, appointed a second lay screener. Hon. Members who have noticed the size of their postbags in the past few years may not be surprised to hear that, although there are two of us, I still deal with some 40 cases a month.
  Of course, some of the complaints are trivial and, inevitably, some of the letters are from people who—perhaps one could kindly refer to them as such—are eccentric. There are matters that the GMC cannot deal with. People write in to complain that their doctor has knocked them off the list. He is perfectly entitled to do that, just as—as I explained earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston—one can knock oneself off the doctor's list. People write in to complain that the man next door is throwing rubbish over the fence. They say, "He's a doctor. I want you to do something about it." I am afraid that that is outside the GMC's purview, as are arguments between patients and doctors about fees for private medicine.
  But some of the cases that I have seen on which the GMC cannot act—I have to agree that it cannot act—leave me uneasy, and they are about doctors who are not up to the standard that patients should reasonably expect. Misdiagnosis is one area. It is easy to misdiagnose symptoms. Doctors are human. They can make mistakes. Medicine is not an exact science. Various symptoms can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Misdiagnosis
  702
  is not serious professional misconduct. But if one finds several similar cases of misdiagnosis on the part of the same doctor, perhaps that suggests that he has fallen behind with keeping up to date with medical knowledge, and that the GMC should be able to act. I have to agree to a letter saying, "We are sorry, but the GMC cannot act."
  I see complaints about a doctor's attitude. The classic one, sometimes quoted by the president of the GMC, is of the patient who walked into the doctor's surgery, to find him bending over his desk, writing, completely ignoring the patient. As she got nearer, she realised that he was writing out invitations to a drinks party, or whatever. After an interval, without looking up, he said, "Yes." That is not really quite the way in which one expects to be received by a doctor.
  I recently saw a complaint from a 20-year-old girl who, with her mother, went to consult her doctor. He sent the mother out of the room, with no explanation, and asked the daughter to undress. He stood watching while she did so. His subsequent treatment of her, the way in which he sought to find out what was the matter, asked questions, touched her in various parts of her anatomy, was generally insensitive. Far from being reassured, that young lady left the surgery in distress. That is clearly not a case of serious professional misconduct. Restricting the way in which that doctor can practise may not be the answer. In fact he may be a rather good doctor, medically, but he needs to be pulled up about his attitude to patients.
  We are talking about doctors who have fallen foul of the GMC. Let us be quite clear that most doctors, be they GPs or hospital doctors, are competent, conscientious and caring. But there are some who are simply incompetent. There is a particular problem with locums, who work for a short time, either in general practice or a hospital. Before very long, their shortcomings begin to come to light. By that time, nobody can do anything about it—the locum may be nearing the end of his stay, he may have already moved on or he may been rumbled and resigned. Neither the family health services authority nor the hospital, whichever employed the locum, can take any action because it is no longer that doctor's employer. Often, the hospital or doctor's practice is glad to see the back of that locum and so will do nothing about the problem. However, sometimes the GMC receives an account of the series of incidents that have caused concern about the locum. However, as no one incident could be described as serious professional misconduct, the GMC can do nothing.
  I hope that I have clearly shown that in such cases the GMC should be able to act. It needs the powers in the Bill to do the job that Parliament and the nation expect it to do. I hope that the Bill will make rapid passage through both Houses.
  Before I resume my seat, I want to refer to the motion on the Order Paper that the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee. I have always been an advocate of Special Standing Committees. Indeed, I have sat on one or two of the relatively few such Committees that there have been. I do not think that the procedure is used enough. Hon. Members will be aware that it is a cross between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, it provides an opportunity for people affected by a Bill or with views on it to express those views directly to the Committee, without the need to find

  703
  a sympathetic Member of Parliament to do so on their behalf. It is also useful when there has been little opportunity for consultation before a Bill is published.
  However, none of that applies in this case. The proposals were first published two years ago and very wide consultation has taken place. At the back of the original proposals are two pages listing all the organisations and individuals that have been consulted. The president of the GMC spent a great deal of time meeting a wide range of organisations and individuals, seeking views that he then took into account in the formulation of the Bill, which has wide support. Therefore, I have to say that whatever the merits of the Special Standing Committee procedure, it is not appropriate or necessary for this Bill. Indeed, it would simply delay our proceedings. I urge support of the Bill, but ask the House to reject the committal motion.
  6.23 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Few subjects are capable of stirring up such anger and emotion as complaints against doctors. Those whom we tend to regard as saintly while all is going well are too easily cast in the role of devil when treatment begins to go wrong. Of course, most doctors are well trained, careful and competent. To sustain that high standard can be very difficult, which is why we need a comprehensive and thorough system of complaint investigation—to ensure not only that those who fall below acceptable standards can be identified, but that they are brought to account, retrained where appropriate and disciplined where necessary.
  The GMC is an historic body, but despite its long history it is often misunderstood. Examples of that have been cited this afternoon. It is not a trade union for doctors, although some of our correspondents seem to think that it is. It does not even deal with breaches of contract by doctors; that is the role of doctors' employers. Its statutory and historic role is to deal with the registration of doctors. That means that it has a duty to register doctors who have reached the requisite level of qualification. It also has the duty to affect a doctor's registration by attaching conditions to it or by the ultimate sanction of erasure from the register if the protection of the public so requires.
  During recent years the GMC has changed a great deal. We have already heard that under the leadership of its current president, Sir Robert Kilpatrick, it has modernised itself and is moving towards simplification of some of its registration procedures. It is determined to increase the proportion of lay membership to ensure that the non-medic has a full role in its deliberations. I believe that the measures that we are discussing today would not be before us had it not been for the energetic efforts of many of those lay members, including the hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). My hon. and learned Friend very much regrets that he is unavoidably unable to be present for today's debate. He strongly supports the Bill, as do I and my other colleagues. I believe that increasing lay membership is of great importance for the future credibility of the GMC.
  Until now, apart from special procedures to deal with sick doctors, which have already been mentioned, the GMC has been able to affect the registration only of
  704
  doctors found guilty of serious professional misconduct, something that we have discussed at length today. Despite the apparent relaxation of the standard of proof permitted by the Privy Council as a result of the McAllister case, the standard of proof remains high and the quality of misconduct amounting to "serious" is unsatisfactorily limited.
  Many cases of sheer bad doctoring have slipped through the net. There is a clear need to provide a procedure to deal with the doctor who is sloppy, who is rude, who is persistently inefficient or who is the source of constant complaint from patients, without any particular incident that could be described as serious misconduct. Unfortunately, some doctors are an accident waiting to happen. The procedures introduced by the Bill will enable the GMC to deal with such circumstances. I believe that the intention is not to introduce a new punitive procedure; the emphasis will be on advice and retraining, although the ultimate sanction of erasure will be available for those whose deficiency of performance cannot, in the end, be remedied.
  The cost of remedial training has been estimated at £530,000, according to the Bill's financial memorandum. That may be an underestimate, especially if the introduction of the new procedures brings forward a flurry of cases. I hope that the Minister will confirm that should the cost be greater, public interest demands that it should be met in full, save in so far as it is reasonable for the cost to be met by the doctor himself.
  The Bill represents a step forward in the consumer's interests and I hope that the House will support it.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like a number of hon. Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), I support the principle of the Bill, which can only be good for patients and for the reputation of doctors. At the same time, however, I have some reservations about how exactly it will work out in practice, and about whether the definitions of seriously deficient performance will allow the public's aroused expectation—I am sure that it will be aroused as a result of Bill—to be met in practice.
  A danger exists in the Bill. The public will feel that, in relation to a range of performance, if they are not satisfied on a local basis, they will be able to report their doctors to the General Medical Council. When they find that it is not prepared to entertain such complaints, I am concerned that they will be disappointed and that, therefore, we will not have taken any steps forward in improving credibility in or the quality of the medical profession's care for patients.
  In the medical service, not just in Britain, but in the rest of the western and industrialised world, the power of the consumer is far greater than it used to be, through both the patients charter and league performance tables, which have been suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House at various times. The population's deference for doctors has fallen. Previously, doctor always used to be right; now doctor is someone whose judgment can often be questioned. Given that sociological or even emotional change in attitudes to the medical profession in the past few years, it is inevitable that people will demand not only higher standards from doctors, but more specific accountability from them.

  705
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central quoted Adam Smith in putting forward his ideas about a committee.
  Mr. Cousins: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would like that.
  Mr. Coombs: Very good. I shall quote an article in The Sunday Telegraph which appeared at the end of last year by Dr. James Le Fanu. He quoted Robert Louis Stevenson talking about some of the virtues that people expected from doctors, apart from professional competence. They included generosity, discretion, tact, heraclean—whatever that is—cheerfulness and courage, which, the article states, brings
  "air and cheer into the sick room and often enough, though not as often as he wishes, brings healing."
  Dr. Le Fanu went on to talk about the seven sins of medicine as described by the late and distinguished Sir Richard Asher. They are obscurity, cruelty—both physical and mental—bad manners, over-specialisation, love of the rare, common stupidity and sloth.
  I do not know whether many of those points would come within the definition of seriously deficient performance as set out in the Bill, but I am sure that a significant number of members of the public will expect that they will be able to report any of their doctors who do not exhibit those virtues and who consistently or otherwise exhibit some of the deadly sins to the GMC, and that, as a result of this new consumer-friendly Bill, which we all so avidly welcome today, those doctors should be able to be brought to account. That is dangerous. The public's perception and that of the GMC, which, as our excellent brief from the Library states, anticipates only about 100 to 150 cases per year, may be considerably out of kilter in relation to the credibility problems that I have described.
  I have a particular interest in the matter, as, I am sure, every hon. Member does. It so happened that Dr. Carol Starkie, who is quoted as being one of the doctors who could be assisted by the new procedures involving the committee on professional performance, was a constituent of mine—certainly her parents were, and she grew up in my constituency. Hon. Members may recall that, a couple of years ago, she was a consultant based at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in Selly Oak, Birmingham, and that she was found to have misdiagnosed no less than 42 potentially cancerous tissue samples.
  That aroused enormous public concern, including, obviously, among the people directly affected and their families. Five years ago, a family in my constituency—I have not asked whether I may quote them today, although they have been upfront in their complaints—lost a son aged 18 as a result of what they believed to be the professional incompetence of a locum and a local general practitioner. The boy was diagnosed as having a temperature for about four days. It gradually went up from 102 to 104 to 105 deg F. On the Thursday evening, a doctor insisted that he merely had flu symptoms, that the windows should be opened, and that he should be allowed to cool down.
  The next day, the boy was admitted to Kidderminster general hospital, where he died the same day. One can understand the devastating effect that that episode has had
  706
  on my constituents' lives, and how concerned they are to ensure, not that the people involved should be compensated, but that such incidents should not happen to other people, and that those responsible should be brought to book—not necessarily in the court but through an effective General Medical Council—as being guilty of seriously deficient performance.
  As I said, I happen to agree with the principles of the Bill. It would be difficult to do otherwise. Obviously, it is right that the purview of the GMC should be extended from merely considering professional conduct and health to wider terms of professional performance. I can understand the arguments, again very well put in the research paper that we have, that the proposals should apply to every sort of doctor, whether he works in a private practice or hospital, or whether he is a locum.
  Nowadays, given the fact that medical practice is changing at an exponential rate as a result of new technology and new techniques, it is all the more important that some grip is kept on professional standards. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who ably set out his case, I have some serious concerns about the definition of seriously deficient performance. I have considered part 2 of the GMC's regulations. It refers to conduct and talks about convictions and forms of professional misconduct that may lead to disciplinary procedures. It mentions
  "neglect or disregard by doctors of professional responsibilities to patients for their care and treatment"
  and
  "responsibility for standards of medical care".
  Paragraph 36 states:
  "The public are entitled to expect that a registered medical practitioner will afford and maintain a good standard"—
  not the best standard—
  "of medical care. This includes: conscientious assessment of the history, symptoms and signs of a patient's condition; sufficiently thorough professional attention, examination and, where necessary, diagnostic investigation; competent and considerate professional management".
  All those would appear to be related to medical duties. They are not related to misconduct whereby one is doing unmentionable things to one's female patients. They are directly related to the standard of one's medical duties. If we are saying that the new committee on professional performance can consider only seriously deficient standards of medical performance, we should take account of the fact that such standards are already accounted for in the conditions on conduct laid down by the GMC.
  Therefore, if we are genuinely to extend the purview of the GMC to medical competence, we should do so not just for the most serious cases but for cases further down the scale. That was what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wanted to do when he introduced his Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, he has attempted to introduce such a Bill several times in the past six years.
  My difficulty is that, although we had the word of the Minister when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), we do not have anything in the Bill. It is significant that the schedule says several times:
  "The General Council may make rules".

  707
  It also says:
  "The Committee on Professional Performance shall be constituted as provided by the General Council by rules under this paragraph."
  I am worried not so much about what we see in the Bill as about what is unseen and what will be decided by the GMC and determined in regulations.
  The Library briefing says that the General Medical Council, when proposing a third jurisdiction, emphasised that
  "there should be an 'equivalence of gravity' between this offence and those of serious professional misconduct and fitness to practice being seriously impaired by ill health."
  It said that they should be judged on the same standard. Either the Bill duplicates what is available at present, as I demonstrated a few moments ago, or it does not deal precisely with the type of problems further down the scale that many of our constituents would expect it to deal with, if competence and the GMC's ability to examine it was genuinely being extended.
  Nor does the Bill tell us—it is left to the schedule—how cumbersome in practice the proceedings under the Bill will be; how quickly, for example, the concerns of someone who makes a reference to the GMC which goes to the committee on professional performance will be met. Justice delayed is justice denied. My constituents to whom I referred a few moments ago have been trying for eight years to find a reason why their son died and who was, responsible. They still have not been able to do so under the existing procedures. If there is to be a significant improvement and if the system is to be effective, there has to be more speed.
  Equally, I hope that access will be easier than it is under the professional conduct proceedings. When I investigated my constituents' case I found that only 9.5 per cent. of complaints ever got anywhere near the professional conduct committee, even though in many cases people had been through the gamut of complaints procedures at local and regional level. I have some worries, which the Minister cannot answer now, about exactly how the Bill will work out in practice. Those matters will be left to representations to the GMC on how it interprets its responsibilities under the schedule.
  I believe that the Bill will arouse the expectations of the public as to their ability to make effective complaints against what they see as deficient procedures and standards on the part of their doctors. Indeed, it is happening already. Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, which is the leading voluntary body in examining medical negligence cases, tells me that up to last year it had 14,000 cases on its books. I would suspect that it is very much more now. The patients charter, in emphasising patients' rights rather than patients' responsibilities, is all the time pushing people into a position in which their expectations are rising and, therefore, their potentially litigious feelings are being aroused.
  We have performance indicators for different consultants or GPs. GPs are in a more competitive position through fundholding or total purchasing and are providing more and more services to their patients. So I should have thought that expectations would be aroused and that the number of complaints which will potentially go through the system outlined in the Bill will significantly increase—certainly way beyond the 100 or
  708
  150 mentioned by the GMC. That raises concerns about how complaints in the health service are dealt with before they ever reach the GMC.
  It is likely that a complaint to the GMC will be at the top end of people's aspirations. Complaint to the GMC will be their ultimate deterrent when they find that the performance of their doctor is not what they would like it to be. I know that the Government have examined the existing plethora of complaints avenues. The Wilson committee has written a document called "Being Heard" which referred precisely to the plethora of complaints procedures—what AVMA called a labyrinth of complaints procedures available to the public.
  Although complaints procedures may be available, if there is a labyrinth, one cannot get through it quickly. If people think that there is a labyrinth, they do not go into it in the first place. Therefore, some people who would like to make a complaint—probably a legitimate one—about their doctor may be deterred from doing so.
  Existing complaints procedures include formal and informal procedures for family health services authorities, hospital administrative review, the hospital clinical complaints procedure and the health services commissioner. Only then does one get through to the civil courts. So there is a variety of complaints procedures. It is no wonder that AVMA has become more and more popular with patients. They need someone to guide them through the labyrinth.
  The Government have produced a document called "Acting on Complaints" only within the last month, in response to the Wilson committee document. It proposes that, where possible, the resolution of disputes in the health service should be local, speedy and far more easily accessible and streamlined than the present procedures. If that comes about, it could have one of two effects. Either there will be more satisfied complainants at the lower end who will not go to the GMC or, as I suspect, there will be more complainants and, as a result, potentially more people will complain to the GMC. So if the system outlined in the Bill is to work effectively and not weigh down the GMC in a huge maelstrom of complaints, the Government must get local level complaint resolution procedures absolutely right.
  When one talks about quality in the health service and avoiding problems of defensive medicine—matters which AVMA referred to recently—the more one emphasises quality-led outcomes and the more there is the opportunity for subjectivity about what is an acceptable quality-led outcome. Therefore, there is more potential for making a complaint against a particular doctor who does not come up to that quality-led criterion.
  It is not merely a question now of saying, "I had my operation. I was in and out and I got better eventually." People consider what treatment they received before going into hospital, how long they had to wait, what their post-hospital treatment was like, whether they went into the appropriate nursing home or whether they had the appropriate home treatment. All those quality-led outcomes, which are rightly demanded by the public, will lead to greater opportunity for people to complain about doctors, whom they believe should manage their treatment in a particular way.
  I was somewhat surprised to read in the briefing paper compiled by the Library that the GMC did not see the new powers as in any way directly related to medical audit procedures in the NHS. The powers may not be directly

  709
  linked to medical audit procedures in the national health service, but I cannot see how they can be anything but indirectly linked with medical audit. After all, medical audit is about the quality of outcomes and assessing that quality. As I said, if we raise people's expectations of the quality of outcomes and those outcomes are not effectively delivered in every case, people will be more likely to complain about the conduct of their doctors.
  In the main I support the Bill, but I am very concerned that the devil, as they say, is in the detail and that what the GMC puts into place, when it looks at the schedules, may not meet the kind of expectations that have been aroused in patients. The problem about arousing—legitimately—expectations of improved service in patients and giving them more rights in the health service is that for every right there is a responsibility. The health service has a responsibility to come up with a particular level of service.
  Equally, the public have a responsibility to ensure that they treat their health service appropriately. It is not appropriate—my local doctors have told me of such behaviour—to turn up at the surgery to have a plaster put on, or to ask for a prescription for a medicine which is perfectly easily and cheaply available over the counter, or to ask for advice about nettle rash. Patients should have some cognisance of such activity when they consider their responsibilities to the health service.
  Although the Bill rightly makes people aware of their rights and the improved quality of the health service—indeed, they are getting that improved quality from our national health service, which is operating more effectively than ever before—it equally diverts their attention in the long term from their responsibilities in the health service. Only by emphasising people's responsibilities in the health service will we in the long term be able to manage demand for health services which the taxpayer can afford.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: For five years in the late 1980s I was an elected member of the General Medical Council. I was an anti-establishment elected member. The British Medical Association used to run slates. I was not on that slate. I was the only non-slate, anti-establishment, pro-patient representative, as it was termed, from Scotland on that GMC elected body. Therefore I hope that my comments will be regarded in the light of the position that I achieved. I was not there to take part in a conspiracy, as has been suggested, or to be part of some coterie to protect other individuals. I was there to ensure the representation of the rights of patients against the establishment.
  When we consider the General Medical Council, it is important to realise—I am not sure that we have quite grasped it yet—that it is not just a disciplinary or sanction body but the final disciplinary and sanction body. Other avenues are open to punish or deal with doctors, some of which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) read out, including the criminal courts, the civil courts and various disciplinary procedures. What is different about the GMC and therefore why there are many complaints about it, although they are not justified, is that it is the body which removes from a doctor the power to practise.
  710
  The GMC removes the power to practise not only in the United Kingdom, whether in the national health service or private health care, but virtually everywhere else in the world. If one graduates from this country and wishes to practise elsewhere, even for a temporary period, one is asked for a certificate from the GMC confirming registration and good conduct. That power is a very important sanction. The GMC is not just some disciplinary body which tells one that one has been a naughty boy and not to do it again; it can finally erase one's name from the register and deny one's fitness to practise.
  While I was on the General Medical Council, I did not serve on the professional conduct committee but on the ethical committee, which is totally different and concerned with such things as ethical positions, in vitro fertilisation, disclosure of information, and so on. I did not have much desire to sit in judgment over my peers and some of their naughty antics. It was, however, clear to me that there was a problem in dealing with clinical competence, within which I would also include the attitudes of doctors to patients: rude, offensive, unacceptable attitudes and bad practice over and over again. While a single instance would not often reach the charge of serious professional misconduct, repeated episodes certainly did and we needed a procedure for that.
  When I came to the House I therefore co-sponsored the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which sought to deal with such problems with a lesser charge. I have sponsored such proposals for some time and the House will appreciate that I make my comments against that background.
  The proposals in the Bill go some way to deal with the problem as I have perceived it over the years. It was a little demeaning of the Secretary of State to try to pretend that the Bill was all a function of and related to the recent changes. We have been seeking a solution to this problem for as long as I have been in medicine, certainly well before the present Government came to power and long before the current changes. Imperfect as it is, the Bill is probably the best answer available so far, but it is one on which we can improve, so a Bill such as that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is no longer necessary.
  This Bill is about good practice, and there are many ways in which we can ensure good practice. It starts off by the selection of medical students. Selection is difficult because it may be based on academic qualifications, interviews and, headmasters' reports. I do not know the exact answer to that problem and many people who will not make good doctors and who will be professionally incompetent will slip through, even with best practice. Good medical education and training is very important, but still people will slip through.
  Good advice is also important. Anyone can be a surgeon; with a little competence it is not hard. Just now and again, however, for reasons of personality, attitude or sometimes dexterity, the odd person who so wants to be a surgeon is not up to it. In the past, some such people were allowed to slip through, but that is no longer the case because strong advice must be taken. Doctors have a duty through training to advise people if they think that they are not up to becoming a surgeon, for example, and they are told to change their specialty. Despite all those

  711
  attempts to ensure good practice, however, some slip through and some, in fact, were always bad. The Bill deals with those cases and that is why I welcome it.
  Nevertheless, I have a number of worries about the Bill, some of which have already been raised. I therefore hope that the General Medical Council—I am sure that it will do this—will monitor the Bill and how it works and that it will report back to the House very soon. I shall now deal with my main concerns about the Bill.
  It seems to be assumed that dealing with incompetent doctors is like dealing with sick doctors and therefore the first-rate health procedures in place are very similar. I am not sure that that is all that good a parallel. There are trivial differences to begin with. Most sick doctors at least were well at one time and became sick, whereas some doctors have always been incompetent. Although that may be a trivial difference, it has practical implications and therefore the method of dealing with a sick doctor is not necessarily the same.
  Perhaps different grades of doctors should be taken into account. I would be happy if the Minister would explain in Committee who is referred to the various committees. Who is referred to the health committee? Is it drunken, alcoholic consultants or junior doctors? Will junior doctors be referred for incompetence or will it be consultants? Again, that will reflect on public confidence in what is happening and how we can manage the problem.
  Another way in which the problem is different from dealing with sick doctors is that patients, health authorities and employers of various sorts are more sympathetic to sick doctors. If a doctor is shown to be sick and has to be sorted out, he or she is given time, help and consideration. But if doctors are just no good and incompetent, should the employer be understanding, retain them as employees and have them in the hospital? The decision will have serious implications for the doctor's contract, how they are dealt with and whether they are retrained. Again, the case is not quite the same as that of a sick doctor.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) mentioned referral, which also worries me. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who is also a member of the General Medical Council, anyone can refer a case; but again, there is a difference between sickness and incompetence.
  If one's problem is alcoholism one might be referred to the GMC via a route that does not affect one's contractual obligations and the employing authority could not question that. For example, one might have been done for drunk driving for a second time—one drunk driving offence results in automatic referral—but one can be treated as a sick doctor without it involving one's contract with the employing authority. If one is an incompetent doctor, however, I see no secondary position. The case must be referred in relation to one's practice and it will be more likely that the contract will be terminated. A hospital has no obligation to retain an incompetent doctor.
  There are important differences in the way in which we deal with sick doctors and incompetent doctors, for example, in relation to retraining and who pays for it and their future in the service. If a patient refers a doctor because of incompetence, the case goes to the GMC, but not to the employing authority. If the doctor is found to be incompetent, but is still employed, who will pay for
  712
  retraining? If the hospital has found a doctor incompetent and sacks him, he is in a different position from a doctor whom a patient has alleged to be incompetent.
  What do we mean by incompetence? I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that. One might be an incompetent orthopaedic surgeon, but not an incompetent doctor. One might make a good doctor in some other specialty. Will one be paid to retrain? What of the consultant orthopaedic surgeon who is found to be incompetent? Will he be retrained as a neurosurgeon, a physician or a radiologist? And who will pay? If one is incompetent in one specialty, must one's name be struck off? Or will one be registered for all practice except, for example, neurosurgery? That is an interesting development and it will be interesting for the GMC to consider whether there will have to be different types of registration, with registration of competence but only within certain specialties.
  Those are some of my worries about the idea that dealing with incompetent doctors is similar to dealing with those suffering from ill health.
  It is right that the method should not be directly related to audit, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned. There can be an indirect link, but audit is a slightly different practice. In an audit, a doctor considers areas of practice in which it is not known how he or she is performing and if it is found that there are discrepancies, the matters are dealt with. One might not be good at one procedure, but be better at others. It might be a case of the numbers of such procedures with which one has dealt. If one is not good at something, it will be necessary to change one's practice.
  A case might come before the GMC if one was shown to be poor at a procedure but continued to practise in the same way. That would be grounds for referral and it is indirectly related to audit. I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest sees the distinction. It is not that I do not think that audit is important. Its purpose is to detect poor performance, but the action that is taken following that procedure is what matters. If a doctor is bad at one procedure, that does not make him or her incompetent.
  The area that worries me, which is in the blue book and is what professional competence is all about, is not competence in a specialty or one area of it, but how one relates to, treats and manages patients. Rude, offensive and bad behaviour must be a basis for referral to the GMC and for being considered under the procedures in the Bill. Such behaviour is bad enough to be considered professional misconduct. In other words, doctors must treat patients with respect and some sort of dignity. Patients must be able to have confidence. They must be able to expect proper clinical history taking, examination, the appropriate diagnostic tests and, if necessary, treatment. Taken as a whole, that is the area with which the Bill probably deals best, and that is why it is not appropriate to deal with it under the heading of serious professional misconduct.
  I do not think that there is a conspiracy to protect doctors. That is why I am not worried about the initial stages taking place in private. Anyone who has served on any disciplinary body, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst and I have, will know that there is no attempt to cover up or to protect. Doctors are concerned, first and foremost, to protect patients; secondly, to protect the profession; and, thirdly, to protect the hospital in which they work.

  713
  Although I have those reservations, which I hope that we shall be able to explore in Committee, I believe that the Bill is an important step forward. It in part solves a problem that we have been trying to solve for many years and I very much welcome it.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: First, I thank the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for his thoughtful speech. I have listened carefully to the debate. Before I came into the Chamber, I had no reservations about the Bill, but various contributions have highlighted some of my concerns.
  To put some of the issues in context, we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition spokesman, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) about the vast range of cases that are referred to the General Medical Council and how few result in a decision of serious misconduct for a variety of understandable reasons.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East also mentioned consistency between the procedures for dealing with doctors and those for other health professionals. I have some sympathy with that approach. The Standing' Committee should bear it in mind.
  We must also consider the Bill in relation to other complaints against doctors and the recent White Paper on the subject. I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who reminded us of the number of complaints against doctors, which are leading to a rise in professional medical insurance. There is a danger that that will lead to doctors not only prescribing defensively, but practising medicine defensively, which is not always in the best interests of the patient.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for his work on the General Medical Council. It is too easy to assume that, when a colleague is appointed to such a body, it involves just the odd meeting. He referred to occasions when he has been in the Library with volumes of reports. I have seen him burdened with those volumes of reports and appreciate his difficult role. He deserves our respect and support.
  Whatever we might say about doctors who perform badly or do not deliver the right quality of medical service to their patients, they are in the minority. The majority of doctors do an excellent professional job and I hope that anything that I say subsequently will be put in that context. In discussing complaints, we are in danger of creating the impression that all doctors perform badly, which is not the case.
  However, there is a problem with the GMC's current powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said that the cases highlighted in the press usually involve sexual matters and the public have the impression that those are the only cases that are investigated. That does a great disservice to the medical profession because such cases are only a small percentage of those that are investigated. I hope that the new powers will go some way towards changing that perception.
  714
  As the powers currently available to the GMC enable it to deal only with serious professional misconduct, the Bill limits the sort of cases that it can investigate. Earlier this afternoon, we had an interesting exchange of views about exactly what are the powers in the Bill. I confess that that aspect worried me as I listened to the debate and I decided to take a further look at the Bill. Frankly, it does not tell me a great deal. I realise that a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes to bring forward these proposals and I do not dispute the work that the GMC and others have done, but I am not sure exactly what the Bill, to which the House is being asked to give a Second Reading, really means. That does not stop me supporting it in principle because there are clearly gaps in the current legislation, but I hope that the Committee will examine the Bill in detail and try to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised today.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst explained excellently, the gap in the current provision means that, although the GMC may be concerned about a doctor's performance, that performance falls short of serious professional misconduct. At the same time, it may be aware of a pattern of similar occasions on which the doctor has been deficient. As matters stand, the GMC does not have the power to deal with such a case because it can deal only with a single act. I understand that the Bill is designed to deal with that problem.
  The interesting exchange this afternoon was about whether the Bill, in addition to giving the GMC the power to deal with serious deficiency based on a pattern of behaviour, provides the power to deal with a single act. The Bill is not clear in that respect.
  I was struck by the Library research paper, which said that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had introduced a private Member's Bill in six different Sessions of Parliament to try to deal with that specific issue. He said that a child in his constituency died of meningitis after his GP had said that he could not be bothered to examine him. I have difficulty with such a case because, while the doctor had clearly not performed to the standard that we would expect of him, the question is: how adequately would the Bill deal with such a case? Could the GMC take action only if there were other examples of similar behaviour by that doctor?
  I hope that the Committee deals with that issue because in many cases in the health service doctors might not perform at the level that we would expect of them. Some cases will be comparatively trivial but others will be serious and fall within the GMC's current powers. There will be other examples where action should be taken and I urge that the matter be considered carefully, because it might be a single act that falls short of serious professional misconduct, as evidenced by the hon. Member for Newham, South in a previous debate.
  No one is in the business of trying to hound doctors and make them behave more defensively than they are sometimes forced to behave now. Rather, it is a question of having procedures in place to deal with a variety of under-performance, whether it is a serious act under the current powers or a less serious act, so that those matters can be dealt with.
  It is not entirely clear, particularly as a result of proposals that the Government recently brought forward, what the relationship will be in terms of powers of complaint to family health services authorities and, conversely, powers of complaint to the GMC. I appreciate

  715
  that the FHSA case is more akin to the employer-employee relationship because it is not direct, whereas the GMC is much more concerned with the professional aspect and has the ability to deregister. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that that is crucial, particularly in relation to local doctors. It is no good someone saying that a doctor is not up to standard if that doctor is merrily practising as a locum all over the place and employers are pleased to get shot of him or her. It is important to deal with that issue, too.
  Despite what I have said, I support the principles of the Bill because it fills a gap in current legislation. My only concern is whether it goes far enough. If the Minister cannot expand on his earlier intervention when he said that the Bill could deal also with single acts where a doctor fell short of professional performance, I hope that that matter will be dealt with properly in Committee.
  7.17 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: Although all hon. Members who have spoken so far support the Bill in principle, it is interesting that a critique has developed during the course of the debate about some of the problems and deficiencies in the Bill. The Bill deals with "serious deficiency of performance" yet the issue that we are all trying to address, and think that the Bill should address, is what we might call "consistent incompetence". Although we may think that the Bill is designed to deal with consistent incompetence, if it is concerned only with serious deficiency of performance, as defined in normal GMC criteria, we shall ultimately find that it has not solved the problem which we thought we had set out to solve in the first place. That is the heart of the problem with the measure before us.
  As Members of Parliament, we must proceed a little gingerly in the realm of self-regulatory activity as we can hardly offer other professions a shining example of how they should conduct themselves. A little humility might even be in order. Although I agree with other hon. Members that the majority of medical practitioners are exemplary in their skill and their commitment, we know that we have a problem that must be addressed. If we do not get it right this time, we will make things worse, not better, because we will have pretended to solve the problem.
  One of our initial difficulties is even deciding the scale of the problem involved. The Secretary of State used the same words as the president of the GMC when she spoke about a small number of consistently poorly performing doctors. What on earth is "a small number"? We do not know because it has never been investigated, but it is a crucial question.
  On 4 December 1994, the health correspondent of The Observer wrote an article with the headline:
  "Medical Mafia covers up Errors".
  He reported that a study of poorly performing doctors was about to be published by the Open University Press in a book entitled, "The Incompetent Doctor". That study revealed that of the 95,000 doctors in practice in the United Kingdom, up to 10 per cent. were estimated by some of those interviewed to be a potential danger to their patients. One professor of surgery said:
  "In Britain we tend to turn our backs on these things. It is not easy to recall where people were willing to confront incompetence."
  716
  The study also quoted the manager of a family health services authority who estimated that 10 per cent. of local GPs were "impaired". He confided:
  "It is almost impossible to force a resignation. It just has to be horrendous for anything to happen."
  Mr. Malone: Before we embark on a route of what I might describe as overestimation, it might be sensible to point out that the GMC has had a certain amount of correspondence about the people likely to be subject to the new rules. Based on its knowledge of the matter, it has estimated that perhaps some 150 or so cases might come before it each year, of which 50 may proceed to further stages. The hon. Gentleman should put that estimate in the context of what we expect from the Bill, which is clearly distinct from the exciting pieces of literature to which he is referring, and which offer estimates of a considerably greater number.
  Dr. Wright: I am bound to say that I was about to make the same point to reach a different conclusion.
  One of the consistent problems highlighted in the responses to the consultation exercise from some of the interested organisations was that they did not know the numbers involved. The Open university study—the figures may be too large—reveals that we have a serious problem that may affect one in 10 doctors. If that is so, we are talking about nearly 10,000 doctors. That is a rather alarming prospect. Let us hope that it is not true, but there is a huge mismatch—the point of the Minister's intervention—between the scale of that problem and the figure of between 100 and 150 cases that the GMC says might come before it as a result of the new procedures.
  We should take some care to investigate as far as we can the scale of the problem. We know, however, that we have a problem that has not been addressed. Everyone who knows about it has sought for a long time for something to be done, but response has been consistent inaction. The BMA, in a masterly understatement, has said that the Bill is a long overdue measure. It is, because the problem of poorly performing doctors has been with us for a long time. We all know that the system has not managed to deal with it.
  I endorse many of the plaudits bestowed on the GMC, but we should ask why, over the years, the GMC machinery has not managed to bring within its definition of serious professional misconduct all those things that normal people would consider to be serious professional incompetence. That indictment of the system should be put alongside any plaudits and congratulations that might be offered to the GMC today.
  The way in which people try to raise queries about the performance of doctors or try to complain as patients or the relatives of patients is a profoundly unsatisfactory business. One of the matters about which I feel consistently most dissatisfied is how constituents who try to raise questions and make complaints about the service they have received from the health service are treated. I am sure that other hon. Members share that feeling. Those constituents are left totally dissatisfied by the outcome of any inquiries made. That is part of the problem that we must address now.
  I should like to give four examples of the type of behaviour that I am talking about. Two of them came to my attention simply from my work on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, which deals with the health service ombudsman. That

  717
  Committee has heard evidence from a succession of health service personnel, including doctors, who have come before it because they have been judged deficient in some way by the health service commissioner.
  One case from 1992, which was referred to the Committee, involved a consultant at the Royal Free hospital at Hampstead, who behaved quite improperly in a case of child abuse. In fact, it was not a case of child abuse, but he told the mother that he thought that it was. His behaviour was contrary to the guidelines that the Government had just issued in the wake of the Butler-Sloss inquiry following the Cleveland affair. It was a most alarming case and the Select Committee stated:
  "We consider it extraordinary that a consultant charged with revising the procedures in connection with child abuse should disagree with management on the nature of those guidelines."
  The consultant told the Committee that he did not feel that the guidelines issued by the Department applied to him because, as a consultant, he knew better. We should ask what happened to that consultant. The answer is that he is still consulting away. I am sure that the GMC has not actively intervened in the matter.
  The second case before the Committee was even more appalling and involved a consultant at the Manor hospital in Walsall, which deals with many of my constituents. Not only did the consultant fail to tell the relatives of a patient that he was suffering from cancer, but he just happened never to get round to telling that patient the diagnosis. Such behaviour is unbelievable. When the patient's family subsequently complained, the consultant said that he never answered letters from patients and certainly never answered those from solicitors. The Select Committee of the House stated:
  "It was the consultant's responsibility to ensure that effective communication of suspected diagnosis took place; something he signally failed to do on this occasion, not, it appears, for the first time."
  In other words, that consultant's behaviour followed a consistent pattern, confirmed by the chief executive of the trust. The Committee also said of that case:
  "We see the need for a culture change in the minds of many of the consultants who appear before us."
  Whatever the GMC and the new proposed procedures may do, they will not bring about a culture change on the part of such consultants.
  Another case involves my constituent, Mrs. Ashley, who died leaving her husband in despair at his inability to get her condition taken seriously. His wife suffered from ever-worsening back pain and he had taken her on a number of occasions to the accident and emergency departments, which could not help. When we finally obtained an independent clinical review, the general practitioners did not even deign to give evidence. The consultant to whom my constituent wrote in despair at his wife's condition did not even bother to answer his letter. The independent clinical review said that that was indefensible. Has such a case been near the GMC? Of course not.
  My final example is a case involving one of the consultants that I have already mentioned, at the Manor hospital in Walsall. He treated a case as constipation when it turned out to be cancer. One might say that that was simply a misdiagnosis, but the independent clinical review concluded that it was not; it was poor clinical
  718
  performance, because the man never carried out the obvious tests that would have established what the condition was. So there was never any proper terminal care for the person involved—who therefore lived and died in agony—or any proper care for the family.
  Indeed, the independent clinical review said that there should be a surgical audit of all the procedures carried out by that consultant at that hospital. Yet, has that case been near the GMC? Of course it has not. I had a letter from the chief executive of the trust, who told me that Mr. So-and-So, the consultant—I shall not give the man's name—"acted properly". That was written before the independent clinical review.
  Rightly, the family has written to tell me that the consultant is still practising on my constituents, and to ask what is to be done about him. The answer is that nothing has been done, and the chances are that nothing will be done. Whatever the numbers may be, whether small or large, that man should certainly be counted as one of them, and on behalf of my constituents I want something done about that. I hope that we all do.
  We all hope that the Bill will produce improvements but I, like other hon. Members, have some worries. I am worried about the definition of what is serious and what is not serious, and about the inconsistency of definition in that area as opposed to other professional areas, such as that governed by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. I think that the general rubric of professional misconduct could well be extended to include the kind of routine incompetence that has been discussed today.
  I am also worried about the resolute way in which the GMC tells us that it will get into the business of being proactive. It will do nothing to initiate any investigation into whether people are performing properly, but will wait for cases to come to it. No doubt that explains why it says that it expects to deal with so few cases.
  In many ways that is the key issue—the general lack of effective clinical monitoring within the system. Somehow we seem to expect the Bill to solve that larger problem, but I do not think that it will. Indeed, I feel rather sorry for the GMC in that respect, because if the GMC cannot play that role, who will? Which part of the system will carry out consistent clinical monitoring?
  Another example of a particular worry concerns the clinical performance of many single-handed general practitioners—a worry endorsed by much of the research that has been carried out. Having recently discovered that in my part of the world there are many single-handed practitioners who carry large lists and seem to refer people to hospital at a high rate, I asked my family health services authority what it intended to do about the indicators that suggested that we had a problem with the quality of primary care. The answer was that it could do nothing.
  All that the FHSA was doing was to examine prescribing patterns, because that is an initiative designed, quite properly, to cut costs and to achieve uniformity in prescribing. But it does not address the issues of quality and of clinical performance. It should do so, and I worry about that.
  The Secretary of State said earlier that doctors had a duty under the internal guidance in the blue books to let it be known if they thought that any colleague was

  719
  professionally incompetent. Yet clearly that is not happening. If it were, the figures and the evidence that we have discussed would not be there.
  I should like there to be a requirement in the Bill to ensure that, as a matter of professional conduct, if a medical practitioner comes across professional misconduct and consistently poor performance he or she has a duty as a doctor to inform the professional body concerned.
  Although there is a broad consensus that something needs to be done, worries have been expressed, not only in the House but by the Patients Association, by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and by consumer groups, about whether the Bill has got it right yet or whether there are areas that still need to be tightened.
  I was alarmed to see in yesterday's edition of The Independent an article about the Bill that said:
  "The Bill has been introduced only on condition that the Opposition will facilitate its passage and not try to alter it".
  I am all in favour of facilitating its passage, but—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Before that idea gets going I shall kill it stone dead here and now. Nobody has said anything about not trying to alter the Bill; we merely said that we would facilitate its passage. Of course we can still try to amend the Bill, but we shall do so crisply.
  Dr. Wright: I expected my hon. Friend to respond if I gave him a cue, and he did so admirably. Obviously it is the duty of the House to consider measures that come before it critically—and, I hope with a measure such as this, in a bipartisan way. I know that the Opposition will help in that process.
  Finally, as several hon. Members have said before, the Bill must be seen in the context of a whole range of measures designed to improve matters in general. The new national health service complaints system, the attempts by the royal colleges to think about recertification and re-accreditation, and the clinical performance initiative are all most important.
  I do not want to get distracted, but if only the Government had not been so crazed in their determination to make organisational changes in the health service and to set up a quasi-market for their own ideological reasons, but had simply devoted themselves to the quality agenda all those years, we could have made serious progress on the fronts that impact directly upon the quality of care that patients receive.
  We are talking about the oversight of a profession, and one of the arguments that has emerged from the debate, concerning the inconsistency between how things are done in this area and in other areas, might even suggest that the time has come for one body to have oversight of all the professions, so as to ensure consistency. Having listened to the debate I am more persuaded of that case than I was before.
  We have come to the end of a road. In another context concerning self-regulation, we were once told that it was last-chance saloon time. Perhaps it is now last-chance surgery time. We must get the balance between professional interests and the public interest right now. I am not yet persuaded that the Bill does that, and we must ensure that it does.
  Finally, I shall mention the procedural point. In a motion on the Order Paper some of us have suggested that it would be entirely appropriate for the Bill to go to a
  720
  Special Standing Committee. The more I have heard of the critique that has developed during the day, the more I have felt that to be right.
  It is essential that we spend some time exploring the rationale for the Bill in a bipartisan way, teasing out some of the issues, before we start the usual, line by line, ministerial defence of the Bill that is the disabling feature of so much legislation that is created in this place.
  Few measures have passed through the Special Standing Committee procedure since it started in 1980—the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in the 1981–82 Session, the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill in the 1983–84 Session and now the Children (Scotland) Bill. Those are similar measures to the one before us, in that they needed thorough, bipartisan scrutiny.
  I shall conclude by quoting what the distinguished then Leader of the House, Norman St. John Stevas, said when introducing that raft of procedural changes, including the Special Standing Committee arrangements. Speaking about Special Standing Committees, he said that
  "Government Bills which raise substantial issues, not of acute party controversy".—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 725.]
  should be subject to that type of arrangement.
  The case for that has been made in today's debate. We need a few sessions in which Members who are interested in all that can explore further the aspects that we have begun to discuss today, before we start the usual progress of the Bill. It will be appropriate and helpful if, when the Minister replies, he brings us good news on that front.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate.
  I believe that all of us, as Members of Parliament, are interested in the health service, especially the national health service. We wish to ensure that the high standards that have been reached in the national health service are maintained and improved. The Bill will help to do exactly that.
  Many sectors make up the health care industry, in both the private sector and the national health service. I use the national health service; I am a customer of the national health service, and I find it to be excellent.
  There are many good news stories in the national health service, which do not receive the coverage that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon—
  Mr. Congdon: North-East.
  Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said, although some cases cause anxiety and improvements need to be made, that does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of people who work in the national health service at all levels do so to the highest possible standards. However, that fact does not prevent us from drawing attention to cases where they fall below those standards.
  The bad news stories always catch the headlines. I have appeared on "Kilroy" a couple of times when the national health service has been mentioned, and the programme makers appear to be able to pack an audience full of people who have gripes about the national health service, when we know that the vast majority who use the national health service regard it highly.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my local hospital, the Southend Health Care

  721
  NHS trust, the director has done a survey of the letters of thanks that he has received versus the letters of complaint, and that the letters of thanks, which generally go straight to the ward, are pinned on the notice board and are seen by the nurses and staff, far outnumber the letters of complaint that come in from time to time?
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that argument. The vast majority of people—in excess of 90 per cent. of those who take part in polls and have used the national health service—speak highly of it. Yet a small number of those who use it and who find that the service falls below the standards that they expect, make the newspapers. My hon. Friend has just spoken about the letters of thanks. Would it not be wonderful if we could read some of those good news stories in our newspapers from time to time?
  Mr. Cousins: I am puzzled about what happens to the letters of complaint. We have heard about what happens to the letters of thanks. What happens to the letters of complaint? Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on that?
  Mr. Evans: Those letters of complaint are investigated, in the main, but unfortunately most of them receive all the publicity, whereas letters that compliment the dedication of those who work in the national health, service do not receive the airing that they deserve. Unfortunately, that is the case in many sectors, not only in the national health service.
  I have anxieties about one aspect of the national health service—ageism. A constituent, Arthur Hornby of Janice drive in Fulwood, has a specific problem. For two years, we have been fighting that case in connection with the bad treatment that he received at Hull royal infirmary. We have not received satisfaction on that issue. My constituent's GP referred him to Hull royal infirmary. It was felt that he should have gone to a cardiac ward there, but he was placed on a general ward. Only after a further heart attack was he referred to the ward where he should have gone in the first place.
  We suspect that there has been a blatant case of ageism in that case. We have taken that complaint to several levels. We are still not receiving satisfaction and we shall continue to pursue that case until we can ensure that any examples of ageism are stamped out of the national health service.
  Mr. Cousins: May I assume that that problem, which concerns the hon. Gentleman, has been handled modestly and without undue publicity?
  Mr. Evans: Arthur Hornby has himself ensured that that case is receiving the right publicity. In some cases it is the publicity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is all very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the debate. Will he get back to the debate, which is on the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill?
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Arthur Hornby would wish me to mention the performance in that specific case. I know that it may fall outside the parameters of the specifics of this particular—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whoever wants the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter, if it is outside the debate, he cannot raise it.
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There are other examples of good news about the national health service that do not make the newspapers. On Friday, I spent all day visiting district nurses in the Clitheroe practice. I also visited Lancashire Ambulance trust and saw some superb news going on there. In the evening, at an award ceremony in my constituency, I met more district nurses operating in my constituency.
  I have also visited GPs in the Clitheroe practice and discussed the concerns that GPs have in Longbridge and Whalley. One cannot discount the fact that far more pressure is placed on GPs these days than was the case in the past. The expectations of patients are exerting more pressure on the GPs. GPs are now given more freedom to take more power to help their patients, to prevent them from going into or being referred to hospital. I believe that, in some cases, that pressure and the expectations of their patients lead some of the patients to believe that they are not receiving the due care and attention that they would wish to have. They wish to ensure that the highest standards are met, especially by GPs.
  Millions of patients are treated by GPs every year. The vast majority of people who are treated by the 26,000 GPs receive excellent treatment. Not all of that practice will be consistently high, and I believe that that, in some cases, is where the Bill will come in and ensure that standards are raised. The Bill aims to meet that challenge.
  That does not mean that, in every case when patients write letters, they have good cause to write. It is simply that the expectations are much greater. People are now given more information about how to complain about the service that they receive. People know how to complain and are doing so, which is good. Patients and customers of the national health service will also want to know that their concerns are being dealt with properly, and the Bill will help to ensure that.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am not saying that the Bill is absolutely right in all its aspects. That is where the Standing Committee will play a role. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, amendments will be tabled, perhaps from both sides of the Committee, to ensure that the finished Bill will be far better than the original one. We shall see what happens in the Standing Committee. It is important to note that the system that is adopted may prevent the need for investigations and complaints in the first place. That would raise the standards of the general practitioners and of those who work in the national health service.
  I am sure that we have all received letters from the BMA, which has welcomed the Bill. It has reservations, but in the main it welcomes the Bill. The measure will ensure that the professional standards of all those who work in the national health service are maintained and, in doing so, it will benefit the profession.
  The BMA raises some points that need to be considered, including the subject of retraining. The assessment of doctors' knowledge, skills and attitudes in the practice and their retraining will ensure that they are kept up to the required standards. The profession is constantly changing. The BMA wants to know who will pick up the costs of retraining, which is a fair question. Now, nearly £40 billion is spent on the NHS and £800

  723
  million a year is spent on training. Will the cost of retraining those GPs and others who work in the NHS come out of that £800 million, or will additional resources be made available for retraining? That is one question that must be answered.
  How many people who work in the NHS are expected to need retraining? That is something that we need to consider. The profession is constantly changing; new technology is being introduced all the time, and new procedures such as keyhole surgery mean that patients stay in hospital for shorter periods. What will be the retraining costs for such procedures? Will they come within the confines of the Bill? We need to know the facts.
  Many people examining our proceedings today will be surprised that we have waited so long for the Bill. Many people will have expected a procedure to have been set up to replace the current everything-or-nothing system. It is clear that the current procedures would not be sufficient to meet the sort of complaints that many of us receive as Members of Parliament. I hope that the Bill will introduce procedures in which people have confidence, so that when they complain about deficiencies, their complaints will be dealt with. Complaints should not fall foul of a system where they are not serious enough to warrant the General Medical Council taking action to correct the problems. The Bill will be extremely welcome if it achieves that aim.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the audit and suggested that the Bill should not involve audit. I agree, but the audit within the medical profession has a role to' play in ensuring that all those who work within the NHS and reach a high standard give a lead to others, so that they raise their standards and we ensure that money spent in the NHS is well spent. Such procedures will include referrals to hospital and the amount of prescriptions currently written by some GPs.
  The Bill's effect may be to raise the number of complaints referred to the General Medical Council. An increase in the number of complaints does not mean that standards are lowered—quite the opposite. It means that scrutiny is being improved, which has to be welcomed. The measure must be seen in the context of the pressures currently exerted on the NHS, the demands and expectations that we have of it and the vast amount of good work that is being carried out within it. One has only to talk to people from abroad to discover that they look at what goes on in this country and admire it.
  We have the best health service in the world. We have the world's favourite health service and we wish to see it maintained for the future. That is why I welcome the Bill.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I particularly endorse his last few remarks and associate myself most strongly with them. I listened with great interest to the earlier part of his speech. He was right to say that, these days, the spotlight of public attention is very much on health matters generally. Although the Bill deals with one specific and fairly narrow part of that subject—the conduct of doctors in the medical profession—that must be understood to be a matter of concern within a much broader picture. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.
  I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when she opened the debate. She was right to mention the public's greater expectations. I should like to apologise to
  724
  the House for missing a short part of the debate after that, but I was sitting on a Standing Committee, where I was required. I was sorry to miss the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), not just because he is the Opposition spokesman on the subject but because I have listened to him on many occasions with great interest. I know him to have a well-measured approach to all matters debated in the House.
  I also regret missing the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), particularly as he has given long service to the General Medical Council, of which he is a lay member. I also regret missing his contribution, because of his interest in, and knowledge of, health matters, which is considerably greater than mine.
  I have for some time been critical of the existing complaints procedure and the disciplinary system within the medical profession. When I was first elected as Member of Parliament for Beckenham, I dealt with a case involving a doctor who could fairly be described as incompetent, but who was not so unreliable as to be considered guilty of professional misconduct. I was surprised to discover at the time that, although local remedies existed, there appeared to be no national remedy to deal with the problem—in terms either of discipline or of finding a way to overcome the problem by imposing, for example, retraining. It was that experience that first led me to realise that there was a deficiency in the procedure.
  My views were brought into sharp relief by a case which I should like to go into in detail but cannot because I have guaranteed the privacy of the individuals involved, for understandable reasons. It is still outstanding. It has been running for two years and involves what I regard as dubious practice on behalf of a member of the medical profession. The treatment provided was dubious; the way in which it was carried out was certainly dubious.
  I was further alarmed to discover while investigating the case that it was by no means the first example of that member of the medical profession behaving in that way. There had been a number of examples and I believe that there have been more since—it is a continuing problem. I took the matter up with the GMC as I believed that that was a way of, if not obtaining a remedy, at least preventing such things from continuing.
  Although I have to compliment the GMC on recognising that there was a problem and on being prepared to look into it immediately, at the end of the day it was not able to offer a solution because in its judgment—a judgment that I have to respect—this case did not come within its rules. The GMC suggested that I take the matter to the Department of Health, which I did. I was advised that, sadly, there was no scope for action there because nothing illegal was being done—it might be dubious, but it was not illegal.
  I found that, as a Member of Parliament, there was effectively nothing that I could do to prevent what was happening. I could offer only sympathy to the people involved, which was certainly not sufficient. They decided, quite rightly, to pursue a legal remedy and went so far as to get counsel's opinion, but found that in this country, unlike in many others, there was no remedy via the courts and the legal system. I was left with the impression that complaints and disciplinary action relating to the conduct of doctors was, at least in that case, inadequate. I doubt that the changes introduced by the Bill

  725
  and the regulations that will follow will be sufficient to deal with such cases, but the Bill is at least a step in the right direction.
  I have begun by criticising two members of the medical profession, but I have had considerable experience of dealing at many levels with members of the profession and I want to make it clear that I have encountered many who are of the highest quality and offer the highest standards of care, service and expertise. I do not want my remarks to be taken to mean that I am casting aspersions on the profession in general.
  It is surely in the profession's interest that its complaints system operates in such a way as to inspire public confidence in the profession generally and ensures that action can be taken when conduct has not been of the highest standard. No profession is immune from having within its ranks people who are not up to the required level of competence, who are not entirely honest or who do not behave as their position requires. Such problems are inevitable because professions consist of human beings. The House should ensure that, as far as possible, there is a way to protect the medical profession's good name against the few bad cases and that public confidence can be retained. I believe that the Bill will succeed in doing that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, public expectations are much higher these days. That is undoubtedly true. She also said that doctors are no longer regarded as paragons. Indeed, people are much more critical now than they would have been even 10 years ago and they require a system that enables them to have their complaints about inadequacy dealt with so that standards are improved.
  I am delighted that the GMC has made it clear that it supports the thrust of the changes because, of course, it is far better to reform the profession if the profession is prepared to endorse change rather than having it imposed on it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who for many years waged a campaign to change the profession's disciplinary system. To an extent, the Bill is the fruit of his efforts, although I know that he would have liked to go further.
  Given the need for swift reform, it is absolutely right that it should be carried out under the present regime of self-regulation. However, were we starting ab initio, I should not feel especially well disposed to having such a heavily self-regulatory system. I speak with some experience of self-regulation, having worked for a while in the advertising industry which operates a system of self-regulation. Although it operates well, it was clear to me that it could not provide all the answers that the public had come to expect. The system was deficient. I was also involved in the setting up of self-regulation for the direct mail industry and came to the same conclusion in that instance.
  We need to ask whether self-regulation is sufficient for the medical profession. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) spoke effectively on that point. He said that he did not believe that there was a conspiracy among professionals to cover up. I accept that judgment, but I still believe that self-regulation is open to potential criticism. Although I would not accept that there is any conspiracy or whitewash among professionals—indeed, they have reason to aspire to the highest
  726
  standards—there is clearly a danger that the profession will indulge in self-protection and use the Bill and existing legislation to be cautious, if I may put it like that, when dealing with complaints and criticism. The profession is naturally resistant to change. It does not want any further requirements placed on it in respect of discipline and standards of conduct unless absolutely necessary.
  If the public are to be sure that a system is operating properly, they have to believe that everything is above board. If the public think that everything is not above board, even when it is, there is a deficiency in the system. I therefore have some doubts about self-regulation, especially in respect of the national health service, whose professionals are required to obtain higher standards than in, for example, commerce.
  Mr. Malone: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I hope that he will bear in mind that the GMC has a substantial lay element, so it is not quite a closed shop. I am sure that he will concede that the Government are not imposing something on the profession. The GMC fought for the Bill for some time and the Government are glad to be able to support it.
  Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said a few minutes ago that the GMC clearly supports the Bill. I was going to stress that, in any event, there is not a system of pure self-regulation in the medical profession. There is a lay element in the Acts of Parliament which gives backbone to the system and which means that the profession is not entirely self-regulating. It is self-regulation built on a statutory framework. It owes its origin to the Medical Act 1858, to which the Bill is related.
  We must bear it in mind that that Act was passed at what was perhaps the peak of laissez-faire, so the system is, in essence, Victorian. I do not say that in a critical sense but simply as an explanation. The Act provided a structure in tune with health provision of the time, but times have changed considerably. The public's demands have changed, which is why the Bill is needed to update the system.
  I regard the Bill as part of a continuing process. I predict that further changes will be needed in future to take account of yet more changing attitudes. I do not share the somewhat apocalyptic vision of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who went a little far in talking about the dangers posed by problems in the medical profession. Although I understand his concerns, the Bill is pretty narrow in terms of the changes that it introduces. There will come a time when a broader framework will be required to cover not just those who the Bill covers—registered medical practitioners—but many quasi-medical professionals whose numbers are multiplying and who offer medical services that are now accepted by the national health service. Some of them are regulated by legislation, such the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994, which I was delighted to support, but many other mushrooming activities in alternative health care should also be included in the legislation.
  Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the public might be disappointed with what the Bill delivers? It will not be a panacea and resolve every small complaint. People may be looking for rather more. The

  727
  Bill is a move forward, but there is further distance for us to cover, particularly in improving the way in which FHSAs deal with complaints.
  Mr. Merchant: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. It is a stage that will be welcomed, but it is a step behind public expectations. His latter point about FHSAs is also absolutely right.
  The Bill's major deficiency is that it widens or deepens the authority provided by existing measures only slightly and it does not provide a comprehensive system to cover the complaints procedure via the national health service, to which my hon. Friend was referring, or the quasi or alternative medical professions.
  My principal feeling is that the Bill is useful and important because it covers a surprising gap in the present powers. The average member of the public would assume that the current disciplinary system or complaints procedure covered adequacy or inadequacy among the medical professions, incompetence, constant poor performance and faulty judgment. Most people would imagine that any doctor who demonstrated incompetence would immediately be caught by the provisions of his own profession's standards and disciplinary systems. That is not the case. There is a gaping hole in provision.
  The present legislation allows for what was described by the rather quaint phrase "infamous conduct in a professional respect". What, indeed, is infamy? It was, defined in 1894 by Lord Justice Lopes who said that it was conduct
  "regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by the professional brethren of good repute and competency".
  That is a very persuasive description, but it is not sufficient to cover poor, simple incompetence and inadequacy and, in that sense, a gap existed.
  The GMC's "Proposals for new Performance Procedures: A consultation paper" went straight to the heart of that. It defines
  "'seriously deficient'—in other words, so blatantly poor that patients are potentially at risk".
  Surely it is necessary to include in the statutory framework behind the disciplinary system that the GMC operates full scope for that to be covered. The Bill does that, and not before time.
  The Bill covers the need to protect the public from deficient performance, but it proposes to do so in a way that is supportive and remedial. The first objective is to protect the public. The second objective is to try to deal with the problem positively by finding a means to raise the individual doctor's standards. Given the potential expertise, the training that doctors have to undergo and the cost, it is surely right that, if possible, a means should be found of rescuing the doctor and putting him back on the straight and narrow.
  The GMC is perfectly right to do that. It recommends putting in place a procedure that will be fully covered by regulations under the Bill when it becomes an Act, local assessment and a complex system of ensuring that justice is done, even if the complaint is relatively minor.
  The GMC has produced an exceptionally complicated flow chart which, when one follows it through, as I have done, is logical and ensures not only that complaints are properly screened and dealt with in the right way, at the right level and with the right degree of proportionality but
  728
  that the doctor is given adequate care and attention at each stage to solve the problem, from the point of view not simply of the complainant but of the doctor.
  I do not believe that the Bill solves all the problems, but it represents an important step forward. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me on one point. It is a contradiction between the judgment of Jean Robinson, vice-president of the Patients Association, and that of the GMC.
  Mrs. Robinson was quoted in The Independent as criticising the proposals for not going far enough. She said that the procedures
  "would involve only cases judged on poorly defined criteria to be 'serious', would operate entirely in private and would provide none of the rights to be represented or to seek a judicial review which are enjoyed by patients bringing complaints of misconduct."
  Referring to the changes, the GMC document said:
  "They will not form a lower form of the conduct procedures. They are not aimed to attract a new category of complaint to the GMC, rather they will provide a way of dealing with many existing complaints concerning failures in professional performance."
  I am somewhat puzzled by that. I hope that the Bill addresses the concerns expressed by Mrs. Jean Robinson and does not entirely reflect the GMC document.
  If the Bill does nothing more than underline what is already occurring, it does not go far enough. If it goes a step further, as I understand it does, the GMC description is not entirely accurate when applied to the Bill. There is a need for a lower tier of conduct procedures. There is a need for complaints that are not caught by the existing procedures to be addressed. If the Bill operates as it should and if the regulations that follow it are sufficiently tough, that is precisely what will happen. The two new committees that the Bill sets up will do that, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give us some reassurances to that effect.
  The Bill is an excellent measure and I strongly support it. I hope that it passes into law soon. I hope that the regulations that follow will be adequate and will enable doctors and medical practitioners to continue to enjoy their excellent reputation by assuring the public that there are proper procedures to deal with those who do not come up to standard and to ensure that those doctors are brought up to standard, for the benefit not just of their careers and future and those of their fellow professionals but of all the people in Britain who seek and expect the best standard of care from health service practitioners.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The excellent House of Commons Library briefing note on the Bill has so far been read to the House four times tonight. There is a rule against tedious repetition. How often do we have to hear it read to us from the Conservative Benches?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware of that particular rule and I have been taking note. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured of that.
  8.19 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who always makes an interesting speech. As I expected, he demonstrated a wealth of knowledge about the subject in the course of his very cogent remarks. It is also a great pleasure to speak in support of the Second

  729
  Reading of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill. However, my contribution will be short because, as we heard a moment ago, much has already been said.
  Mr. James Pawsey: But it will not stop my hon. Friend saying it again.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. The Bill takes an extremely small but significant step forward in driving up standards of patient care.
  Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he find it as extraordinary as I do that there is only one Liberal Member, two Labour Members and not a single Back-Bench member of the Labour party—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the Bill.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill received all-party support, so it seems absolutely incredible and outrageous that the Opposition Benches are empty, as my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: As we support the principle of the Bill—which is what should be discussed during the Second Reading—the Opposition parties are trying to make progress while Government Back Benchers seem to be filibustering unduly. I cannot understand why they are doing so, but that is clearly what is going on.
  Dr. Spink: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have been listening to the debate very carefully and you will be aware that hon. Members have raised a number of very proper questions which will be dealt with during the Committee stage of the Bill. That is why the debate has proved so interesting and useful. The Minister is taking great notice of it and he is making copious notes. I look forward to hearing his speech.
  Both the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association have given their blessing to the Bill. The GMC press notice of 16 March 1995—a significant document which I have taken from the Library research paper and which I do not believe has been read to the House—states:
  "We identified a gap in our powers and I am pleased that Parliament has been asked to fill this gap to enable us to do our job more effectively".
  That is what we are about tonight.
  Mr. Congdon: I agree with my hon. Friend and we are all aware that the GMC was behind the Bill; it identified a gap in its powers. However, should we not ask whether there are other gaps that are not addressed by the Bill? There is a danger that we will pass the legislation and, in five years' time, realise that such gaps exist.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East makes a telling point that has been referred to before and that I will come to in a moment.
  In talking about the support that the Bill has received, I must mention the important patient groups and associations which have indicated their support for the general thrust of the legislation, although they also expressed some reservations. Those reservations have been aired tonight, but in deference to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East I will not rehearse them again.
  730
  In welcoming the Bill, I accept that there are some difficulties in the national health service and that mistakes sometimes occur. The NHS treats millions of patients each year and it would be incredible if occasional misjudgments or even gross errors of judgment did not occur. Thankfully, such events are rare and I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses and even the health service managers, all of whom enable the health service to function properly and provide an improved service to our constituents.
  Southend-on-Sea trust hospital is improving the service it provides to my constituents. It treated 17,140 more patients last year and it has treated an additional 700 patients this year.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems as though my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. It is very interesting to learn what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's hospital, but we are dealing with the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill. I ask the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr Spink) to address his remarks to it because we are nearing the point of tedious repetition.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have raised public awareness that taxpayers should expect good, timely and courteous service from all areas of the public sector, including the national health service. The Bill addresses that point very directly. The Conservative Government have raised patient expectations. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) outlined many of the ways in which patients have received more information and more rights, so I will not repeat those points.
  The citizens charter movement was initially scorned by Opposition Members, but it is now being studied and copied across the world, for example, in the United States. Tonight hon. Members have referred to a number of alarming cases involving serious neglect in the health area. The Bill should swing the balance of health care in favour of the patient while dealing with problems that occur from time to time in the health service. It will provide patients, the BMA and the GMC with another weapon in their armouries. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to that point in welcoming the legislation during debate about the Queen's Speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said eloquently that patients have responsibilities as well as rights and he referred to patients' increasing tendency to abuse those rights. People are making more night calls and they are constantly referring matters of little significance to their doctors. That is placing a burden on the system, doctors are being placed under greater pressure and that is leading to an increase in the number of mistakes that they make. I hope that we will look carefully at ways of inhibiting that development.
  A story appeared on the news tonight about a doctor who worked 110 hours. He successfully sued his local health authority and received about £5,000 compensation because he said that he had been put under undue pressure and was therefore at risk of making a mistake in treating patients. If he had made a mistake which had amounted to gross incompetence, the Bill would have swung into effect and enabled him to receive additional training so that he could provide his patients with better care. That is one of the reasons why I support the legislation. We

  731
  accept that patients have needs and rights and that they should receive the best possible protection from incompetent doctors.
  Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I apologise for interrupting the flow of his speech. He is making an extremely eloquent speech which I know will be noted carefully by all those hon. Members who are in the Chamber and by those who will read Hansard in due course. Does he find it surprising that there is no reference in the Bill to the work of the health service commissioner? My hon. Friend assiduously attends debates in the House and he studies such matters with the utmost care. Therefore, is he surprised that the Bill does not mention the work of the health service commissioner and the way in which he may hear complaints relating to general practitioners?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a mini speech, not an intervention.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it was a rather long intervention, it was an interesting and important one. Of course, the health service commissioner plays a pivotal role in these matters, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that when he replies.
  Whatever the reason why a doctor might be incompetent—the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), himself a distinguished medical man, gave a very illuminating account of the various reasons, so I shall not rehearse them—he or she should be given the opportunity to recover and repair. The Bill allows time for that process to take place. The Bill leads the way, therefore, to improving standards of doctoring by allowing time for doctors to retrain. It gives them one or two years—perhaps more—to retrain and represent and be relicensed, so that they can continue their profession. That is absolutely right. The Bill is not just about discipline and punishment. It is focused on driving up the standard of care that patients can expect to receive from their doctors. That is the way it should be.
  On a technical note, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a most interesting and cogent speech, referred to the costs of retraining and asked whether they would come from the general NHS budget or from any other hypothecated budget. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill said that the cost to the NHS of retraining doctors, as a result of the Bill's measures, would amount to about £530,000 each year. I do not think that we should consider that cost as unacceptable or, indeed, that it is an unacceptable demand on the health service budget, as sound benefits will flow from that relatively small expenditure.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. What happens if the doctor involved is not a practising doctor but simply works as a locum and moves around the country? What happens, for instance, if that doctor was in private practice? Which section of the NHS does my hon. Friend think would have to cover that cost? Would the local family health service practitioners committee have to foot that bill, even though the doctor was in no way attached to it? There is a problem there.
  Dr. Spink: These are all extremely interesting and important questions which my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be addressing—
  Mr. Malone indicated assent.
  Dr. Spink: I have seen the nod of the head. I, like my hon. Friend, look forward very much to receiving the explanation about that and perhaps to reading the deliberations of the Committee, which, no doubt, will go into this with a fine-toothed comb.
  Mr. Pawsey: Once more I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his speech. I draw his attention to clauses 5 and 6. He will be aware, because quite clearly he has studied the Bill in considerable depth, that clause 5 provides that an
  "Order in Council may bring different parts of the Bill into effect at different times."
  Yet clause 6 says that the Bill
  "will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom."
  Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is an argument for some form of pilot scheme to be introduced, perhaps, for example, into Scotland, to see how the Bill operates and to sort out any teething troubles? I would welcome his advice on that point.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend has clearly assiduously read the Bill, has taken in all its clauses carefully and is considering them. I believe that it is such a good Bill—it takes an important step forward in its contribution to improve patient care and helps doctors who are having problems to recover from those problems in an honest and honourable way—that it should be brought in without a pilot, as soon as possible. No doubt those items can be deliberated on at length in Committee.
  I was talking about whether the £530,000 cost of retraining doctors is acceptable or whether it would be an unacceptable burden on the health service, and that benefits would flow from that expenditure and that it was relatively low. The increased effectiveness of doctors as a result of the expenditure on their retraining, and the better diagnoses that they would make, would deliver massive benefits that would far outweigh the very small cost. I do not think that the cost is of any great significance. I believe that it would be money extremely well spent.
  I agree with other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), that we need better systems to deal with chronically poor doctors—those who make small mistakes from time to time, who need a small amount of help—rather than the very serious bad performance and outrageously bad professional conduct, which, in a way, are easier to deal with. The Bill addresses those more directly. We cannot avoid the problem of the chronically poor performance, and we must find systems and improved ways of dealing with that.
  Mr. David Lidington: Has my hon. Friend studied the precedent set by the Osteopaths Act 1993 and, dare I say it, the Chiropractors Act 1994, which provide for penalties in respect of conduct by a practitioner that falls short of the standard required of either a registered chiropractor or osteopath respectively? Does my hon. Friend believe that those might serve as useful precedents

  733
  that the Government might study with a view to introducing something not dissimilar with regard to the orthodox medical profession?
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point, which no doubt will be considered carefully. He comes to the House with a lot of knowledge and has done a great service to society at large through his work with the Chiropractors Act. We pay tribute to him now.
  I shall give a specific example of a chronically poor performance. It has not been covered before. You will not be aware of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been a lot of repetition tonight, and I deplore that. Indeed, I am trying to avoid it. The example is one of a doctor who falls out with a patient—perhaps there is a personalty clash, or whatever—and decides to remove that patient from his list, but refuses to give a good reason, or any reason, for so doing. The GMC will not take any notice. It is not terribly interested. I have tried to interest it in a difficult case in my constituency, but it has not shown any willingness to become involved. The FHSA sometimes finds that it cannot be of much help. Doctors in the area talk to one another. Other doctors are reluctant to take on the patient. As a result, the patient, who herself was damaged as a result of the medical profession making a bad decision in the first place, may well be causing a nuisance to the doctor.
  But that is the nature of it. Many of our constituents cause what might be considered a nuisance to us. They have every right to do that. That is what we are paid for, and we must accept that and deal with it in a proper and professional way. We cannot turn our backs on our constituents, and we do not. Doctors should not turn their backs on their patients, but some of them do. I doubt whether the Bill would deal with that. The committee on professional performance, which is mooted in clause 1 of the Bill, would not be able to deal with that. It would not consider it to be any great professional misconduct issue that it should deal with. Gross misconduct or serious deficiency in performance would not cover the removal of patients from a list. So we have—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. If the Bill does not cover the illustration that he is giving, I am afraid that he is out of order. If he thinks that it might, he would be in order.
  Dr. Spink: I am greatly indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are absolutely right. However, perhaps we should consider whether the Bill should be extended to cover that matter. I think probably not; the Bill should go forward as it stands because it is an extremely good Bill and we should not delay it. We need to consider other measures to follow behind it. I note that you are leaning forward in your Chair again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so before you stand up I shall sit down.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I apologise to the House because although I was here to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's introduction to the Bill, unfortunately I then had to attend meetings elsewhere
  734
  in the House and so missed what has clearly been a long and interesting debate. I hope that in my few remarks I shall not be unduly repetitious.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Only someone who has not attended the last two hours of debate could possibly describe it as interesting.
  Mr. Atkinson: I do not think that I should be tempted to reply to that comment—although I must point out that I hold the Bill in my hand, not the research document from the House of Commons Library.
  I join in the general welcome for the Bill, which is an important measure that will do a great deal to improve medical standards in this country. It should be made clear that the Bill is in no way a criticism of the national health service or of doctors. We should say time and again, even at the risk of being repetitious, that Britain has a first-class health service and that the majority of doctors and medical practitioners are of an excellent standard and take great trouble about retraining and keeping up to date with modern trends in medicine.
  The Bill is a kind Bill. It is not intended to attack or harry general practitioners who may fall foul of it. Instead, it makes provision to retrain them, to support them and to bring them back into the fold as competent doctors.
  I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) about there being some gaps in the Bill. I do not want to be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I believe that in time we will have to extend the process to developing areas of medicine such as chiropractors—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) knows a great deal about—or even bone setters, as they are known, who are increasingly moving into a quasi-medical position.
  I speak from a position of considerable luck because I represent a rural constituency. It has isolated communities, but within them there are first-class medical practices, health centres covering most of the constituency and an excellent general hospital. I am sure that the provisions in the Bill will not need to be applied to any doctor in my constituency.
  One concern that I have about the Bill is the effect that a vindictive patient might have on a perfectly competent GP. I know that the Bill provides for a screening system, but I am concerned that an individual GP could be dragged before a committee time and again simply because of complaints from a troublesome nuisance patient. As patients learn more and more about their rights—as they should—the odd troublemaker might seek to pursue a vendetta against a GP.
  There is also the question of who pays for retraining. That issue should not be left in the air. I appreciate that one of the problems with such a short Bill is that a great deal of the detail is to be left to regulation, which I understand must be approved by the Privy Council. That always causes Members of Parliament to feel slightly ill at ease because we are being asked to approve a Bill that is not complete.
  The question of who pays for retraining is important. Doctors may be self-employed, but usually they are employed by the family health services authority. There are also some peripatetic locums who move from one position to another. Who would be responsible for retraining those people? I do not think that the local health

  735
  authority or the hospitals should take on that retraining. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that point when he replies.
  Another point that needs consideration is the appeals procedure. The Bill is complicated, but my understanding is that if a GP felt that he had been wrongly convicted—that is perhaps not the right word—his only recourse would be to the law. There is no opportunity for an accused doctor to disagree with the screening process or the professional judgment of his peers. I wonder whether there should be such a gap in the Bill.
  Will the hearings of the General Medical Council's committees be held in public? The GMC's proceedings are usually open to the public. One difficulty could be that, much to the delight of the tabloid newspapers, marvellous stories about doctors in trouble with their patients could be splashed across newspapers—even though the allegations are often totally unfounded. Will doctors who have to appear before the GMC committees be granted privacy when their cases are heard?
  Despite those few reservations, I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that the details in the regulations will be more thoroughly discussed in Committee because, as I have said, there is a slight feeling of ill ease that such a short and compact Bill should rely on other people adding to it to make it work.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I was detained at the start of this afternoon's business, so I look forward to reading the early part of the debate in Hansard. I want to raise some important issues which I do not think have been covered in earlier speeches.
  Over the years, Members of Parliament have to deal with many cases in their constituencies. Some can be easily resolved, but more usually they cannot. When a professional conduct case is involved, it is usually beyond the competence of a Member of Parliament to make a judgment, any more than a Health Minister can make a judgment on a clinical matter. That is no different from the behaviour that the British people would expect of lawyers, accountants or any other professional person. It is the whole essence of professionalism. Standards apply to a profession and we expect people in that profession to maintain them. I was fortunate enough to be a teacher for 16 years before I entered the House and I learned the essence of professionalism in the world of teaching.
  The cases with which we have to deal as Members of Parliament vary widely, and sometimes we are fortunate enough to gain some professional insights. I served as a member of the Medical Research Council, where I saw what many would regard as the rather esoteric end of the market. However, it gave me an enormously important insight into the challenges facing the medical profession, both in this country and elsewhere.
  Some of the cases that our constituents bring to us turn out to be not quite what they seem. That is why I warmly welcome the Bill. It will help us in our role but, above all, it will help citizens who feel aggrieved and it will help those members of a profession who may occasionally have unwarranted charges made against them. Sometimes cases are brought before us and there is incomplete information. A patient is aggrieved, he disbelieves his GP and he wants to take the matter further. Only a few weeks ago, I was told of a constituent whose mother had
  736
  allegedly died of bed sores in hospital. Of course that was not the position, but the relatives felt aggrieved. I regret that the symptoms were much more serious, but, all told, it was a hard time for the family concerned.
  There is the occasional malingerer and the occasional example of a night-time call-out when a doctor reluctantly gets out of bed and travels miles in rural constituencies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), I represent a rural constituency, and I know how it must feel. No doubt, doctors there can incur the wrath of their patients when appearing less than enthusiastic at the prospect of a journey of some miles to visit someone who is unwell. In all those cases, the patient may feel aggrieved, and occasions may arise when professional misconduct takes place. Generally speaking, however, that is not the case.
  The danger involved in politicians talking too much about the issue is that they give the impression that professional misconduct is commonplace when the reverse is the truth. In my experience, it is extremely exceptional to have any serious case—the sort of case that might be covered by the Bill in relation to professional performance in the medical profession. We should be careful.
  We need to deal with one or two other issues, on which I should be grateful for the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister. The first involves the question: what do we mean by "professional conduct?" One of the things that has interested me in my constituency is the improvement in the past decade in medical services provision focused on the village health centre. That has made an enormous difference to the quality of life in general, and particularly to the medical quality of life for tens of thousands of my constituents.
  A substantial building programme has taken place. There are more than 100 villages in my constituency, many of which boast a good primary health care facility. The financial arrangements under which those health centres have been built put a considerable responsibility on the professionalism of doctors who are partners. Does the Bill and the concept of professional performance extend to the financial management and responsibilities of those health centres?
  Should something go wrong with the complicated mortgage structure of some of those centres, might professional performance be called into question? Would it bring the profession into disrepute if, for example, a partner who had gained substantially because of the capital increase in the value of the building made off with the loot, so to speak, in a way that might be regarded as underhand?
  I have no evidence that that has ever happened, but, as primary health care increasingly receives substantial sums of money from the taxpayer, it is not unreasonable to ask whether professional competence in the medical profession extends not just to the service and the bricks and mortar of a practice, but to the extremely expensive software and computer equipment, and to the ancillary staff, who are so important in an advanced health care system such as we have now. That issue should be explored.
  Mr. Lidington: I find myself in considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's line of argument. Does he think that, when dealing with conduct, the Committee that will be appointed after, I hope, Second Reading is given to the

  737
  Bill, might amend the Bill to include a clause on conduct falling short of the standard expected of a doctor, much akin to the clauses already included in the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994?
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and I tend to agree with him. For example, clause 1 refers to the committee on professional performance finding that a fully registered person has been "seriously deficient", but in what respect? That needs to be explored in Committee. I have no doubt that it will be, and it is important that it should be.
  Mr. Lidington: Again, the two Acts to which I alluded and which relate to professions that complement orthodox medical practice have something to teach us. They distinguish between incompetence in the practice of the medical discipline concerned and misconduct more broadly defined. The Chiropractors Act, for example, refers to someone being found "guilty of professional incompetence" and distinguishes between that and
  "conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered chiropractor".
  That distinction is already embodied in those two Acts and Ministers might wish to consider it in Committee and during the Bill's later stages in the House.
  Mr. Key: Paragraph 9 of the schedule to the Bill, states:
  "In Part III of Schedule 1 (Committees of the General Medical Council) after paragraph 21, there shall be inserted the following paragraphs".
  They mention the assessment referral committee and the committee on professional performance. Even that, however, does not really help us or get us far. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some answers for us on what exactly is meant by professional performance. There was perhaps a danger in assuming that, when the General Medical Council identified a gap in its responsibilities, that gap would be easily filled. It may not be easy even to decide what the gap is, let alone whether the Bill fills it.
  As I have said, any professional misconduct by the medical profession is exceptional. I, too, pay tribute to the high standards in the national health service. I have always relied on it. I have no interest to declare as a subscriber to a private health scheme because I am not. The only private insurance that I have is with my dentist, who decided voluntarily a couple of years ago that he wanted to go down that road. He made the right decision. It proved good value for money for my family because, apart from anything else, as someone who only last Saturday reached his 50th birthday, my teeth are pretty rotten, and my three children have, I think, one filling between them, so the dentists will do themselves out of a job if they are not careful. I have no financial interest in the matter. I and my family believe that the NHS is superb.
  I have come across one serious and tragic case. I shall not refer to it in detail because it is still running, and I fear that it will run and run. It involves the death of a child. That constituency case has brought home to me the gravity of professional misconduct or, indeed, misjudgment and it has led me to examine in some detail exactly what happens to a member of the medical profession when something goes wrong.
  738
  Again, lest it be assumed that the Bill has identified a gap that we can easily fill, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, with the increasing complexity and technological involvement of the medical profession, it is sometimes very hard to identify which link in a chain might be at fault or, indeed, guilty of professional misconduct.
  It is clear that there is a chain of many links and that things can so easily go wrong. In my constituency case, for example, when the child was first taken into hospital the nurses perhaps did not examine the child as quickly as they should. At that time there was not an absolutely standard procedure laid down for all cases in which a patient suffering from suspected poisoning was brought into the hospital. So time was lost. A doctor was not fetched by the nurse. The pathology department was short staffed because it was a Saturday. Part of the kit was unavailable. A computer link to another hospital north of the border was down because of a technological problem and, again, it was a Saturday. And the consultant was not fetched early enough because the earlier steps had not been followed.
  The independent professional review revealed that one person could not clearly be held to blame. There was a series of deficiencies in procedure. Not only the medical profession but the administration was at fault because no administrative procedure had been put in place to cope with the situation in the first place. Moreover, the case was not brought to the attention of the chairman of the trust until nearly two years after it all happened.
  Cases in which there may well have been some professional misconduct can sometimes take a long time to investigate, and justice is therefore harder to apply. There is a long chain between the patient, the administration, the nurses, the junior doctors and the consultants.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend has fixed on a particular point. He mentioned the business in clause 1 about where professional performance is found to be seriously deficient. In the example that he has described, would he say that any one of the doctors could be called seriously deficient?
  Mr. Key: Yes, I would, but that is not for me to judge. That is precisely why the General Medical Council exists. It is a serious point. The length of time between the incident which led to the death of the child and the revelation of what had gone wrong meant that junior hospital doctors had moved on to other jobs elsewhere in the country. So the national health service trust in which the incident occurred was not in a position to discipline the juniors involved in the case. We therefore return, despite the chain, to the need to have a General Medical Council and for it to have adequate procedures. That is why I support the Bill, despite my reservations.
  The case in my constituency is not over. That is why I have not referred to it in any more detail. The overriding problem for me is, first and foremost, the enormous distress to the parents that things went wrong and justice was not, at least in their eyes, seen to be done. Secondly, there is the enormous strain on the medical profession. It was not a case of a criminal being identified by a jury and retribution being meted out. It was not like that at all. It was a case of deficiencies on the part of very professional people who had been victims of consequential events. Misjudgments were made. The independent professional

  739
  review pulled no punches: it said that notice should be taken of some things that some nurses, some junior hospital doctors and some consultants had done. We are not at the end of that particular story.
  We should not treat the Bill lightly and simply assume that it will plug the gap which even the General Medical Council has identified. We are dealing with unusual circumstances here. Of the many thousands of cases with which hospital doctors and consultants cope every week and every month, in only a tiny handful do things go wrong.We must ensure, first of all, that the likelihood of things going wrong is minimised. Secondly, we must ensure that when they do go wrong, the machinery exists to put them right without victimising people or stigmatising professionals who have not been guilty of any misconduct.
  The provisions in the Bill buttress a system which is quite exceptional in that it leads right up to the Privy Council for appeal. We should be immensely proud of that because it means that we regard the professionalism of medical people in this country as of the highest importance. That means that we have not only the best health service in the world, but the highest standard of doctors. That is why people want to train in this country.
  It is the duty of the House to ensure that we support the Bill so that the highest professional standards will always be maintained and the reputation of medicine in this country will be one of which not only we but the whole world may be proud.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I whole-heartedly endorse the closing remarks by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Indeed, I find myself, uncannily, in an almost parallel position. I too had 14 years in education and had to deal with a lot of pupils, families and illness. I probably share the hon. Gentleman's approach to Parliament. Fortunately, the Bill has no party or even any national health service content in principle at all. It is Parliament doing its job for the public.
  I too, unfortunately, had a constituency case involving the death of a child. Instead of a chain of unfortunate circumstances, as the hon. Member for Salisbury described, my case concerned one general practitioner who was clearly and very badly wrong. Justice was not done and it resulted in an identification of the gap that we are hoping to fill with this Bill. I too have reservations about the Bill. I cannot say that I support it wholeheartedly. It is good that there is a Bill, whether it be this Bill or the procedures that have been outlined I am not quite so sure, for reasons that I shall now make plain.
  I have one other thing in common with the hon. Member for Salisbury and that is being late for the debate. I am very sorry that I was not able to hear the opening speeches. Some hon. Members will know why and others will find out why if they look at today's Order Paper. The Select Committee on European Community Legislation sat for three sessions in Brussels today with Commission personnel and our ambassador there. All the discussions were about 1996 and the change. I have been trying and have managed, through the good offices of colleagues, to be in two places in different countries at once.
  This debate is about the regulation of a very important profession—such matters, incidentally, of course also relate to education—which needs protection. Obviously,
  740
  anybody who is in a critical position—such as a medical practitioner, a nurse or a combination of nurses and doctors—may always be blamed. It is a natural reaction. But we also have to protect the public. This Bill and the Medical Act 1983 to which it is attached should mark that proper balance. Parliament on behalf of the public must strike that balance.
  Such a balance was struck in the Merrison report of April 1975, which is worth putting on record. Paragraph 10 reads:
  "We have suggested that the regulation of the profession can be looked upon as a contract made between the public and the profession. It is important to understand in this context that the GMC is merely the instrument for the proper supervision of this contract and that it derives its authority, and its being, from legislation. The legislature—that is, Parliament—acts in this context for the public, and it is for Parliament to decide the nature of the contract and the way it is to be executed."
  That sums up the spirit of the debate and what we are about.
  The trouble is of course that in respect of Alfie Turner, there was no justice, or any for his family. He was a lad from Canning Town who, 12 years ago now, died tragically. He may have died anyway. The case is well known. The great bravery of Mrs. Stafford from Silvertown is also well known. At some risk to herself, she shopped the doctor concerned after the General Medical Council did not deal with him properly.
  That deficiency in procedure prompted my private Member's Bill, which has been before the House for nearly 10 years. The GMC has not accepted it, but it has helped to promote the long discussions and detailed consultation in the medical profession, which has resulted in this Bill.
  My private Member's Bill was supported, among others, by Dr. Maurice Miller, a former Member of Parliament who is known to many Members present. It was also strongly supported by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who has joined me to table a motion to refer the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill to a Special Standing Committee.
  As many hon. Members have said, this is not a simple matter. I suggest to the Minister that the procedure of taking evidence and deliberating in such a Committee prior to the formal Standing Committee, which is now available to us, is tailor-made for considering this sort of important relationship between a profession and Parliament. I hope that the motion will be given due consideration. The Government Front-Bench do not have to do anything, but must merely say nothing if I am able to move it. Perhaps we will have better legislation as a result.
  My private Member's Bill had the support of the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the Secretary of State for Transport, who was then a Back Bencher and who knows a thing or two about medicine. It was also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who is an eminent consultant.
  I am unable to give the Bill under consideration direct support because, as I explained when I moved the Second Reading of my private Member's Bill on 3 March 1987, there is a lacuna in the present procedure for what we might call conduct and discipline. Under the present arrangements, a doctor must be found guilty of what is

  741
  termed serious professional misconduct, even if he is to be put on conditional registration, which is the main feature of the performance procedure.
  I want to question the link—there must be one—between conduct in one incident and a general level of performance. Perhaps it is easier to assess it from one incident than from a period in which there has to be a serious deficiency in performance.
  The word serious is very flexible. It gave rise to the terrible situation in the Alfie Turner case, when Dr. A was not willing to examine or treat the boy, or even call for an ambulance when he was virtually unconscious, and would not even take his temperature. Alfie Turner died of meningitis three days later. The doctor was found not guilty of serious professional misconduct and walked out of the General Medical Council with only a stain on his character. The GMC did not even have the power to put him on conditional registration. My Bill, which has not yet been accepted, would have allowed it to do so.
  Enough of my Bill because we now have a Bill before us and that is very important. We should have some reservations about it, however. The first reservation should be about its format, as it has three or four principal clauses, which will trigger off a complex procedure. It took me quite a long time to fathom it out in the official documents. The procedure is not contained in a single diagram but in three diagrams of some complexity. No doubt those familiar with the GMC and the medical profession will be able to understand it. That complexity is another reason why we should study the Bill in a Special Standing Committee for three days, as we are allowed.
  My second reservation concerns the screening procedure and I am sorry that I was late today as I know that one hon. Member present knows about it. I should have thought that it was controversial to have a single screener, or a screener with reference to just one other person. The process of screening complaints from any quarter will be replicated in the parallel procedure for performance, currently found in the realm of conduct. I have heard it said—we shall no doubt find out in Committee whether it is correct—that members of the GMC's preliminary purposes committee cannot consider cases which the screeners have already dismissed. That may have been changed by now; if not, I hope that it will be changed because it is not good procedure.
  Those of us who have been in local government or on Committees of the House know that a chairman's action can be looked at and, even if it cannot be reversed, it can at least be revealed or further endorsed. Unless someone in such a crucial position is open to subsequent inspection, the public have cause for concern. Under the procedures to be adopted, the decisions of one or, at most, two screeners should be open to subsequent examination. After all, if someone writes to a member of the GMC and asks why a case did not come before it, that member should at least be able to look at the case, perhaps in confidence, to see why it was dropped. I do not think that can happen now.
  Since introducing my Bill, I have received many letters about delays from all over the country. If someone complains to the GMC, it naturally puts the matter off if the complaint has gone to the family health services authority or one of the learned colleges of medicine. That
  742
  may be all right, but I have heard many examples where complaints have been brushed off, and the GMC's public relations in that respect do not always induce public confidence.
  I have referred to the complexity of the diagrams on procedure. I make no specific complaint that the performance procedure as distinct from the final stages of the disciplinary procedure are held in private, as there may be an argument for that. The problem is that, once a complaint has been considered, and even after the screeners have said that there may be a case, the complaint can be dropped in at least three subsequent parts of the procedure before it reaches the proposed statutory committee—the assessment referral committee—and will not necessarily reach that committee at all. Although there may be nothing wrong with that, if it is not open to GMC members to consider those complaints, the public have cause for concern.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury mentioned appeal to the Privy Council. That is confined to the conduct line of investigation but will be complicated if we are to have two parallel forms of investigation. Although the conduct of a doctor who is guilty of a criminal offence or some other misdemeanour that is not medical must be investigated, we now have no less than four committees: the preliminary purposes committee; the professional conduct committee; the assessment referral committee; and the assessment of professional performance committee. We also have the possibility of appeal to the Privy Council. Unless what is happening in those investigations is crystal clear and open to an extent, even if doctors are anonymous, I fear that difficulties may arise.
  I should like to refer to the financial memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. I do not think that we should necessarily worry that doctors who are recommended for some form of retraining should receive it at public expense. I am not sure that that is correct, unless they are employed by the NHS, but I do not want to pursue that. I am interested in the estimated sum, because I cannot understand how it was arrived at. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me that when he replies. How do we know how many doctors will go through the retraining process? What standards of serious defective performance will be set by the various committees? How many doctors will be eligible for some sort of retraining or other acceptable courses before they reach the later stage in the retraining process? I cannot see how it was possible for anyone to make a realistic estimate of the amount contained in the financial memorandum. The sum will be paid per annum at the current cost, so what will happen later?
  I am not arguing that it is wrong to give money for the retraining of doctors, but someone with a great deal of relevant experience said to me, "By George. Many of these doctors are getting on a bit and haven't kept up." I wonder how capable they are of benefiting from the sort of courses that will be offered. Such doctors may need something more, such as support from their colleagues, or something more subtle than a retraining course. We should ask a lot of questions about those financial arrangements.
  I referred earlier to the format of the Bill and I should like to do so again, because of the procedural implications more than anything else. Although the Bill has relatively few clauses, designed to amend the Medical Act 1983,

  743
  the schedule to the Bill contains about 50 amendments—I accept that some may be minor—to the 1983 Act. Apart from the clauses, the schedule contains two chunks of amendments to be incorporated in the amended 1993 Act. I reckon that those amendments will create a few new complex sections in that Act when they are either laboriously changed in ink or in "Halsbury", or some computer has a go at it.
  It might be worth while—it may be dealt with in another place—if the relatively few sections in the Act relating to doctors' performance were repealed and replaced by an entirely new section. It would be rather like replacing a unit in a complex piece of electronic machinery instead of trying to tinker with it by changing just odd parts. The meaning of the amended Act would then be clear. Unless that is done it will be extremely difficult to follow the new law. That might mean a feast day for lawyers, doctors and the Medical Defence Union, but it would not be right for us to leave legislation in such a tatty state.
  The MDU expressed an interest in my amending Bill. I wrote an article about it in the Journal of the Medical Defence Union issue number one of 1991, in which I said:
  "The Bill in essence is as much in defence of the reputation of the profession as a whole, since it would promote confidence in it that doctors deserve and the public have a right to expect."
  I suspect that that principle should be applied to the 1983. Act, as amended by the Bill, as much as to my own honourable effort.
  I called my Bill the Turner-Stafford Bill because it was dedicated to two constituents; one, alas, dead while the other lady is still alive. One of the biggest lacunae in today's Bill is its failure to match what my private Member's Bill sought to provide.
  Here we have two streams of procedure, a conduct procedure and a performance procedure. There is a triangle, and if one of the preliminary screeners says, "This is conduct; we ought to do this through the conduct leg of the procedure," and the procedure goes through as it did in the case of Dr. A, and in the end the doctor is found guilty of not having done this, that or the other, but his omissions are not considered to have amounted to serious professional misconduct, he cannot even be put on conditional registration. That is what happened with Dr. A.
  If, on the other hand, the person controlling the original king points—the first screener—says, "Let us do this under the performance procedure," the case goes all the way through the performance channel and the committee says, "Dear, dear, there has been a serious lapse in performance here," the doctor will get retraining or be put on conditional registration. I consider that the better way of describing it, because the result should be remedial, not penal; we want remedies but not necessarily penalties. In that case the doctor would get something that it would be impossible for him to get under the present law if the case were dealt with under the conduct procedure.
  Paraphrasing the legal language, my Bill simply said that if what a doctor had done did not amount to serious misconduct, but was nevertheless conduct unacceptable in a medical practitioner, the GMC would have the power to put him on some sort of conditional registration, however mild. The exact details could be tailor-made for the situation.
  744
  However, the GMC said that it did not want those powers. I now suggest—and I shall take the matter up in Committee—that if such a situation arises the conduct committee, which already exists, should have the power to refer the case back to the performance committee, saying that there had been no serious professional misconduct but that there had been a lack of performance. That would amount to what my Bill would have brought about. Although the GMC was against the idea at the time, I hope that it will reconsider.
  The suggestion could form the basis of one of the amendments that we make to the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Committee will be that suggested in my procedural motion, which I hope the House will support as the most appropriate way of dealing with this important Bill, which not only affects all of us as members of the public, but affects all our constituents and also the noble profession of medicine.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate—briefly, because I know that we are all anxious to hear the Minister's responses to the questions that he was asked not once but many times.
  In my opening remarks I was uncharitable enough to observe that the governing party was padding the debate out and to allege that that was done to avoid exposing the Secretary of State to more contentious debates on health care. The debate has provided a fair amount of evidence to support that contention; it has been good-natured and well-informed, if somewhat repetitive.
  The first Government Back Bencher to speak was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight); she was the first of several hon. Members to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for the part that he has played over the years in repeatedly trying to bring before the House the issues addressed by the Bill.
  The hon. Lady praised my hon. Friend and his supporters on both sides of the House for their endeavours, and she also mentioned the meningitis case to which my hon. Friend referred. Her words found widespread acceptance in the House when she asked what we could do about a doctor who said that he could not be bothered to see his patient. I must admit that I am pretty sceptical about how much retraining would help in such circumstances, yet retraining is a key feature of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston expressed a fear that our health service would approach the American model and become more litigious. I agree with what she said about that, although I fear that the Government's national health service reforms take us in that direction, rather than help avoid it.
  In a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) delivered himself of a highly critical and well thought-through critique of self-regulation. The Government have made it pretty clear that it is the legislation before us, amended as best we can in Committee and on Report, or nothing. They are not considering a more radical reform of the profession or professions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central expressed uncertainty about the use of language in the Bill. He concentrated on the meaning of the word

  745
  "serious" and mentioned the number of procedural stages and the influence of old boy networks. The argument about language was well taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who made a similar argument, although about the word "competence". Both words are important. Obviously, the way in which those terms will be defined in practice will set the standards for the profession, and it is right that we tackle those issues now and in detail during consideration in Committee.
  That brings me to the contribution of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who told us helpfully and fully of his work on the PPC. I pay tribute to him for that work. He rightly spoke of the importance of the laity in the work of the General Medical Council. However, although he expressed support for the principle of the Special Standing Committee procedure, which Labour Members would like to be followed in that case, he said that he did not consider that it was applicable in those circumstances, because there had been such widespread and thorough consultation.
  I am sure that what the hon. Member for Chislehurst says is true, but let me say to him, as gently as I can, that Members of Parliament, especially members of the Opposition, have not been a part of that consultative procedure. If legislation is to pass through this place, it is for the elected Members of Parliament to satisfy themselves that the legislation is properly structured—not for all the outside interests to be so satisfied, and to come to Parliament and treat us as though we were a rubber stamp. Our constituents would not want us to be treated in such a way, and it would be demeaning to this place if we ever allowed ourselves to be treated in such a way.
  I advocate crisp but mature scrutiny of the details of the legislation, once concise expert opinion has been heard—the same concise opinion to which people in the profession have already been exposed. I consider that that would serve Parliament better than the adversarial Committee procedures that I believe are the ones that the Minister favours—although I wait to be surprised and perhaps even encouraged.
  I make the Minister an offer. I guarantee that, if the procedure that we wish to be adopted is accepted, we shall co-operate fully with that procedure and the Bill will not be unduly delayed. Indeed, that promise was made to him during the Queen's Speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) got his teeth into the briefing notes so ably prepared by the House of Commons Library, although he diverted from them to accuse some patients of unreasonably becoming ill, thereby placing pressure on the national health service. [Interruption.] I hope that I do not do his contribution an injustice, although I hear from the groans of his hon. Friends that I may have paraphrased him unfairly. It is nevertheless the case that there is increasing pressure on the national health service, which shows up in the statistics for complaints and in the much smaller statistics relating to the GMC's ability to cope with complaints.
  We had a powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who discussed the extent of the powers in the Bill, made the case for the Special Standing Committee procedure
  746
  that we support and especially placed emphasis on the importance of definitions—an argument that was made by every Opposition Member who spoke.
  We then began what I can only describe as a parliamentary filibuster. Conservative Members followed each other and spoke to the briefing notes. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) condemned high-profile complaints and then treated the House to an example of a high-profile complaint. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) read the Library note adequately, but he was rehearsing what the hon. Member for Edgbaston had said earlier.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) got his parliamentary revenge on me and my former colleague, the late Harry Cowans, for having kept him up late at night in 1984 on the Rates Bill. He clearly harbours a grudge and undoubtedly remembers the inadequate whipping by the Government during the passage of that Bill. He was followed by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), whom I must congratulate on having managed to find and then read to the House the one bit of the Library briefing note that other Conservative Members had not yet read. At that stage I found myself thinking, "Why me?"
  The House will recall that last week I attended the passage of a private Bill when I represented, on my own, the parliamentary Labour party as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) delivered a two and a half hour defence of Bart's hospital. At least he did it with elegance and enthusiasm. Attending parts of today's debate was not like watching paint dry but like listening to it. Even the Minister's parliamentary private secretary fell to reading Scallywag—as far as I could see from here, it was the latest edition. Presumably he was checking to see if the Minister for Health appeared in it. I do not know whether that is part of his parliamentary duties—[Interruption.] The Minister obviously does not appear in it.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) raised a perfectly good point about accountability. The General Medical Council is not responsible to the Secretary of State for Health; it is responsible directly to the Privy Council. Parliamentarians on both sides of the House are right to be especially vigilant when there is a suggestion that the royal prerogative is to be used rather than a decision of the House.
  Every point having been made umpteen times, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) returned to an earlier theme. He would not have known that he was returning to an earlier theme as he entered the debate pretty late and apologised for doing so. He asked what was meant by professional misconduct. The discussion about definitions is at the heart of today's debate. The key question is how should a profession be regulated. I say as gently as I can to the House that it must involve professionals, even if only professional advice. The laity are also important—a subject that we shall want to examine in Committee—because they are there to represent the public interest.
  The debate's second theme involved the meaning of the key terms in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked, how is "serious" to be defined and why is the word "serious" necessary? My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden made exactly the same point around the use of the word "competence". We were asked whether a single incident would be sufficient under the new procedures or whether

  747
  a doctor's performance over time was to measured under the new procedures. I understood the Minister to say that there were circumstances in which a single incident could of itself bring the new procedures into play. We shall wait to see the sort of cases that will emerge. It is important that we understand that a single incident could trigger off the procedures.
  Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to legislate for the other professions? In my opening remarks I listed the phrases that pertain to disciplinary actions involving the other national health service professions, and a response from the Minister tonight would be helpful.
  I conclude by making a plea around the procedural point. It would reflect credit on the House if we dealt with this issue, on which there is no division on principle between us, in a non-adversarial way in a Special Standing Committee, thus enabling people to give evidence to us so that we could make our decisions on the basis of it. It is a suitable Bill for that procedure, and I make the Minister this pledge: if he adopts that procedure, we shall do everything that we can to facilitate it and make it work as it should rather than to frustrate it or use it in a partisan way.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I must first refute the scandalous suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that the contributions made by Conservative Members were anything other than extremely constructive. I listened to all of them with care. My hon. Friends, like the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), contributed to an excellent debate on a complex subject and each raised a number of novel points, to which I shall respond.
  I must also point out that, had it not been for my colleagues carrying the debate when there were no Opposition Members here to do so, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who, with his usual courtesy, had alerted my colleagues and I to the fact that he was hoping to speak but could not be here until late, would have been thwarted, returning to the Chamber only to find the debate had finished. I, for one, am pleased that he was able to make his valuable contribution.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I must apologise. I had not realised that the governing party was deliberately keeping the debate going so that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South could contribute. I apologise to the Minister and thank him for filibustering in a debate on the Government's own legislation.
  Mr. Malone: It was a happy and slightly unforeseen consequence of my hon. Friends' enthusiasm.
  I am extremely pleased to be able to thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East for his remarks in support of an important Bill and for saying that, ultimately, the Bill will pass through Committee with reasonable dispatch, subject to discussion of the very many issues that will be raised in Committee and to which hon. Members of all parties have alluded. I hope that the circulation of the notes on clauses will assist detailed discussion of the Bill later.
  Hon. Members raised a wide range of concerns about the responsibilities of the General Medical Council as well as their views on the Bill. I shall try to deal in detail
  748
  with as many as possible and comment on some aspects of the Bill that have not been raised in great detail—and there are some, although the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East may not think so.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate, she mentioned the importance that the Government attach to the GMC's new procedure. I am happy to wind up the debate, but I must make it clear that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who was here at the beginning of the debate but was unable to remain until the end because he had commitments elsewhere, will take the Bill through its remaining stages.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the possibility of a Special Standing Committee. The Government believe that there has already been thorough consultation on the Bill's subject matter. The GMC has issued two consultation documents and we believe that little would be gained by using the Special Standing Committee procedure in this case. I listened with some care to the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East on this subject, but, following the consultation process, it is clear that the Bill is supported by a wide range of professional groups and patient groups which comprise the type of people who would come before such a Committee. They have made their position clear. The remedial approach is supported by professionals; it is preferable to putting doctors through adversarial proceedings of conduct hearings, which are regarded as punitive and would require criminal standards of proof.
  As those important matters have been extremely well aired by the GMC in the two consultation documents, it is the Government's view that a Special Standing Committee would not be entirely appropriate as the purpose of such a Committee is to raise novel issues that were not canvassed before the Bill reached Second Reading.
  Mr. Spearing: In the bipartisan atmosphere, I thank Conservative Members for bringing to the debate facts and matters that have been transferred from another part of the building and that otherwise might not have been recorded in Hansard. Does the Minister agree that nothing will change the Standing Committee stage? All he is saying is that we are not to have the preliminary of up to three mornings. He says that it is not worth it. How does he know? How can he prejudge what extra might emerge in those Select Committee hearings?
  Mr. Malone: I am not trying to prejudge that. There has been a substantial consultation process that is adequate for the Bill to proceed.
  Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: No. I have a substantial number of points to address in the remaining 15 minutes, not least some of those raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman Newcastle upon Tyne, East sought. I turn directly to a number of points that he raised. First, he asked about the role of the screener. I repeat that the screener, who will be a medical member of the GMC, will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support an allegation of seriously deficient performance. He will examine the evidence submitted to him and, if necessary, will seek additional information.

  749
  A complaint can be dismissed only with the concurrence of a lay screener. The Government believe that that will afford protection to complainants in that their complaints cannot be dismissed by one individual alone. That provides substantial reassurance.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether retraining is the answer if a doctor is persistently poor. A doctor must be given a chance to mend his or her ways. The Bill is not punitive, but designed to bring people back into line.
  The assessment process may be the first time that a doctor is brought to the point of accepting that his or her performance is poor. Training may not be the sole answer. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, who said that it might be a fairly complex matter. There may also be a need for counselling or for a period working under the guidance of another doctor. If a doctor does not improve, or performance is found to be so poor that there is a danger to the public, the matter can be referred immediately to the committee on professional performance, which can impose sanctions, conditions or suspension.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East also asked about the reinstatement of doctors who had voluntarily removed their names from the register, consequential to the powers in clause 2. If a doctor subsequently applies to have his or her name reinstated,, the application for reinstatement will be considered by the appropriate committee of the GMC.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of meetings in private. Rules will provide that the assessment referral committee will meet in private. One of the reasons for that is that the proceedings before that committee are preliminary in nature and should be held in private, as are the preliminary proceedings committee of the GMC, which considers conduct matters.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have recognised that the Bill provides that rules will be made determining whether proceedings before the committee on professional performance, which is the main committee in respect of the legislation, will be in public or private. Initially, the GMC has taken the view that it would like them to be in private, but it will keep the matter under review. In any event, the doctor who is the subject of the proceedings will be able to demand that the proceedings be public if that is what he or she wishes.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned other professional bodies and inconsistent powers, to which he asked me to refer specifically in my winding-up speech. He is correct in his summary of the powers of other health regulatory bodies. They differ to some extent and none parallels exactly the GMC's new performance procedures. The Bill results from a medical profession initiative and we would be very interested in proposals for change that any other professional bodies may choose to develop and bring forward. However, such proposals must be developed as carefully as the GMC's measures and should include public consultation, which was a very important element of the GMC's preparation for the Bill. At present, we have no plans to introduce legislation, although we would be prepared to consider the matter if other professional bodies put such proposals before us.
  I now turn to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who raised a number of points that I shall address
  750
  directly. She asked, rather pertinently, what clause 1(9) of the Bill means. How will people—for example, employers—know that a doctor has been suspended? That is an important question.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Absolutely.
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will doubtless be glad to hear—as she endorses its importance from a sedentary position—that, if a doctor is suspended, his or her name will still appear on the register simply because the name has not been erased. The registrar of the GMC will ensure that a note appears against the doctor's name to the effect that suspension has taken place or that conditions have been imposed on registration. Anyone who makes a search of the register—as employers should do—will discover what the position is.
  Access to the register will also be improved. The GMC is actively exploring ways to make the register more accessible in its up-to-date form, which will be important as matters proceed fairly quickly. For example, it will be made available on the Internet—how fashionable can one get, Mr. Deputy Speaker?—or on CD-ROM. I assure my hon. Friend that the register is checked regularly by employers—12,000 last August—to ensure its effectiveness. It is an extremely active register and I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my comments.
  A number of hon. Members raised the issue of seriously deficient performance. There is no clear definition beyond that in the Bill which, as I said to one hon. Gentleman, is not unusual when drafting legislation of this sort. However, I shall explain what is intended for the future. The GMC will issue guidance setting out the standards of professional performance that will be expected of doctors. It currently gives similar guidance on professional conduct and medical ethics in the blue book, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned. Future definitions will be advanced in the blue book or its equivalent.
  Once guidance is available, the GMC will have a clear yardstick against which to measure a doctor's performance and it can therefore decide whether a doctor has been seriously deficient in his conduct. In addition, I am assured that the GMC will publish the details of the outcome of performance hearings. As the process develops, a clear body of knowledge will build up to which people can refer in much the same way as a body of case law develops in other areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston also raised the question of overseas doctors. She asked whether language difficulties could count as serious deficiencies in performance. I think that that would be unusual because language ability is tested before registration is granted. However, if communications problems prevented a doctor from competently examining a patient, taking a clinical history and explaining treatment plans and things of that sort, it would constitute a serious deficiency in performance—although I think that such an occurrence would be extremely unlikely.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central suggested that the profession was too protected. Under the Bill, anyone may send information to the GMC on a doctor's performance—patients, employers, health authorities or other doctors. I disagree with him that it is a profession that is protecting itself. It is an open procedure and I believe that the rest of the House has recognised it as such.

  751
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on making an extremely important contribution to the debate, as I am sure he will to the Committee. He knows a tremendous amount and is well-versed in these matters. The next time I pass him in the Library and see him behind a pile of books, I will know what he is doing. It was good of him to enlighten us.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) stated that the ultimate sanction of erasure would be available under the Bill. I would like to point out to her that it will not. I would not like her to harbour any illusion on that point. A doctor cannot be erased under these procedures. A doctor can only be suspended or have conditions attached to registration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) was concerned that the devil is in the detail of the Bill—as it is with so many other pieces of legislation that come before us. The rules that will be made by the GMC are subject to detailed scrutiny by the Privy Council after consultation with Department of Health lawyers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), and a number of other hon. Members, asked whether a single act that fell short of serious professional misconduct could be dealt with by the proposed procedures. I said at the time that the answer was yes, and I confirm that. That single act may trigger the action, but the action itself as it goes forward will look at the outcome of the assessment process. Of course, the assessment process will not be based on the single act but will look far more broadly at the track record of the doctor.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: Briefly.
  Mr. Brown: Is the Minister adjusting what he said to the House earlier about a single incident?
  Mr. Malone: No, I am not. I am saying that the single incident may trigger the procedure, but clearly, by its nature, the assessment process does not look just at the single incident that has been raised. It is expected that an iceberg of problems will be revealed once the assessment committee begins to look at it.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that matter in Committee, as I want to move on to a few other points, particularly that raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I think that I am the only hon. Member to pronounce his constituency correctly this evening. Doubtless he will be grateful for that. He raised the point that a doctor may be an incompetent orthopaedic surgeon but be all right to practise in other areas. He asked what could be done about that. The GMC will be able to place specific conditions on a doctor's registration.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) asked whether the GMC should treat doctors who ignore concerns about a colleague's conduct, health or performance as guilty of serious professional misconduct. The GMC will take action, I can assure him, where it discovers that a doctor is not fulfilling a professional obligation, as outlined in the GMC blue book. So that will indeed happen.
  A number of my hon. Friends raised other points later in the debate. I should like in particular to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle
  752
  Point (Dr. Spink), who asked why there was no reference to the role of the health service commissioner in the Bill. The GMC is, of course, an independent statutory body and is in no way related to the health service commissioner, who can take an interest only in the NHS.
  A number of other matters were raised on the Bill. I cannot refer to them now, but doubtless they will be raised in Committee.
  The measure has not simply been sought by the GMC but been endorsed by the Government and the Opposition parties. That is quite right. It is an important measure, not just for the medical profession but for patients, who will be reassured by the fact that there is unanimity on both sides of the House about the principle of the Bill, although amendments might well be tabled in Committee. I am delighted to support the measure, to bring it to the House, to make a real improvement, not just for patients but, in the proper context, for the medical profession. It is better to retrain doctors who become less competent, rather than to penalise them. I recommend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 61(2),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Spearing.]
  The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 133.

  Division No. 135]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beggs, Roy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  McFall, John

  Betts, Clive

  Maddock, Diana

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Maxton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davidson, Ian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dowd, Jim

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Galbraith, Sam

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tipping, Paddy

  Gunnel, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Jim Cousins.

  NOES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Bates, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  753

  Dunn, Bob

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Faber, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Paice, James

  French, Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gallie, Phil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hague, William

  Shersby, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Sims, Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hawksley, Warren

  Sproat, Iain

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Stephen, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sweeny, Walter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sykes, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Knapman, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Viggers, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

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

  Waller, Gary

  Knox, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Watts, John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Wells, Bowen

  Legg, Barry

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Lightbown, David

  Willetts, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Malone, Gerald

  Mans, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Merchant, Piers

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

MEDICAL (PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE) BILL [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other enactment.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

10.12 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope that I shall not appear ungrateful for the motion before us. It is required for tomorrow, to allow the Standing Committee that will consider the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—my private Member's Bill—to progress.
The Government have been reluctant to table the money resolution. They left it until the last possible moment. Reluctance has been apparent in their whole attitude to the Bill. They tabled the money resolution only because it is part of the custom and practice of the House when someone has been successful in obtaining a Second Reading of a private Member's Bill and it is due to go into Committee. Everything else that they have done has been associated with blocking the Bill. They would be openly blocking the Bill if they did not produce the money resolution that is before us tonight. So they cannot readily and easily be criticised for that. However, they are using other means to hold up the Bill.
On the amendment paper for the Committee's sitting tomorrow, there are already 111 amendments in the name of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is engaging in a procedure that will make it difficult for the Bill to come out of Committee and appear on the Floor of the House on Friday, which is the last available day when the measure can be dealt with.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman would come back within the confines of the money resolution—[Interruption.] Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of how restrictive the money resolution is—or do I have to give him guidance?
Mr. Barnes: I recognise that we are dealing with a money resolution and that I need to direct my attention to questions about costs. I was just pointing out that the Government have been rather slow in tabling the resolution, which ties in with a host of other approaches to the Bill that they have adopted.
The Government have been misleading about cost. There has not been a cost assessment of the Bill, whereas the cost of the Government's alternative, the Disability Discrimination Bill, has been assessed. Last year, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), was assessed in a peculiar fashion, which concluded that the Bill would cost £17 billion. That was a massively exaggerated figure, which took account neither of phased provision nor of any benefits to business and the considerable tax take. Such tax take must be assessed in relation to the money that would have to spent on the Bill. It is a matter not only of expenditure but of income.

755
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Americans with Disabilities Act have many similarities. The American Act was introduced not by Clinton, but by Bush and there have been many claims about its revenue-raising potential, which need to be considered alongside the money that it requires. The false furore over the costs of the Bill ignores the real benefits to business and society. The disability debate should not be polarised; it should not be split into different political camps. My Bill is modelled on the American Act, which aimed to bring the walls of exclusion tumbling down.
There were also fears about the cost of such legislation in America, but the American experience shows net social and business benefits, increased access to work, cuts in the cost of dependency and boosts to tax take. Disabled people are also consumers, often with untapped disposable income. The Americans with Disabilities Act—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really has to confine himself either to access to polling stations or to the disability rights commission and the costs and work of that body. He must confine his speech to those areas. He cannot go into the benefits of VAT, consumer expenditure and so on.
Mr. Barnes: Part IV of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill deals with the provision of goods, facilities and services. In America, the Act resulted in some 200,000 new goods and services. For example, a New, Jersey pizza parlour fitted deaf aids, advertised in the deaf community and doubled its profit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me clearly enough. It is no good him just carrying on reading the notes about the American Act that he prepared beforehand. He cannot refer to the American Act on this particular occasion. [Interruption.] Order. I ask him again to refer either to the disability rights commission or to access to polling stations.
Mr. Barnes: I take it that, as the provision of money is linked not merely to access to polling stations and the disability rights commission, I am entitled to mention other matters contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which will require money to be spent. The motion does not state that the expenditure incurred by the Crown will be limited to those two aspects of the Bill. Perhaps I am being told that I can deal with only those two matters because the Disability Discrimination Bill has dealt with the others. Am I allowed to extend the analysis, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The scope of the debate is restricted to the financial aspects of the Civil Rights
756
(Disabled Persons) Bill, not the American Act and what it has done. The debate is purely on this Bill and the two key features of it are the disability rights commission and access to polling stations.
Mr. Barnes: I do not want to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to the American legislation. I mentioned it only as an example of how relevant revenues could be raised. I find it surprising, however, that in your ruling you are confining me to discussing the disability rights commission and access to polling stations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken on board the fact that I am confining him to dealing with spending, not raising, money.
Mr. Barnes: Money will need to be spent to provide goods, services and facilities, for example, in transport and education, and on access to housing and premises, as that is provided for in the Bill, as well as on the important work of the disability rights commission and access to polling stations. As polling stations often operate within schools, that will add to provision as regards access to premises and new constructions.
The range of expenditure provided for in the Bill is relevant to the provisions of the money resolution. I am pleased that at last we may be able to adopt the resolution. I welcome it, but I am concerned that it has taken us so long to deal with it.
Mr. Simon Burns: Sit down.
Mr. Barnes: I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be allowed to continue as long as I am in order. According to the Order Paper, 45 minutes is allowed for hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
I grant that the important factor is that we make the decision, just as it has been important all along for us to make decisions and progress with the measure. I shall accede to the wishes of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and conclude my remarks, but I hope that the Minister and Conservative Members will be as succinct as I have been on this occasion when we reach further stages of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act;

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

Local Government (Leicestershire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10.23 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss local government in Leicestershire. On 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he was minded to accept the recommendation of the Local Government Commission to alter the present local government arrangements in Leicestershire in favour of a unitary city, a unitary Rutland and a doughnut county council outside the city and Rutland, with the remaining districts and boroughs staying as they are.
Since the last reform of local government in 1974, we have had a county council for Leicestershire which, for administrative purposes, includes Rutland, and nine district, city or borough councils: Leicester city council in the middle of the county; Charnwood borough council in the north; Melton borough council in the north-east; Rutland district council in the east; Harborough district council in the south and the south-east; Oadby and Wigston borough council between rural Harborough and the city's south-eastern boundary; Blaby district council to the south and west of Leicester, separating Harborough, from Hinckley; Bosworth borough council in the south-west and west of the county; and North-West Leicestershire district council.
My constituency takes in the whole of Oadby and Wigston and much the greater part of Harborough district, the smaller part being within the Blaby constituency. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) present. Harborough is the largest district within the county in terms of acreage, and borders the city, Melton, Rutland, Blaby and Oadby and Wigston. As the hon. Member for Harborough and a resident of Leicestershire, I take on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents a profound interest in what is proposed for my county. Those are not matters that affect the interests of only one Member of Parliament, whether he be from the city or the county. They affect us all and, although I represent neither a city seat nor Rutland, on that account I cannot be shut out from expressing my deep concern about what the local government commission proposes for Leicestershire as a whole.
I must get at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State through the Under-Secretary. To accept the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Leicestershire would be wrong in principle, damage public confidence in local government and lead to greater financial burdens on local taxpayers in the entire county. It would be fundamentally to misunderstand the public mood in Leicestershire, unpopular and, still worse, unwise. The overwhelming majority of Leicestershire's people want no more than to be left alone in terms of local government reform. They neither want nor need upheaval. They expressed that view by taking no interest whatever in the Local Government Commission's activities, or by reacting with puzzlement as it went about its work.
First, I shall deal briefly with Rutland, not because it is unimportant—on the contrary, it is a unique and wonderful county for which I have the greatest affection and admiration and I do not wish to see it harmed in any
758
way—but because a solution to the difficulties that are bound to present themselves with unitary status, which is bound to attract widespread support throughout Leicestershire, is at hand. The case for recognising Rutland's identity, its long history as a county and its long-time and recently settled residents' strength of feeling for their native and adopted county is well made and can be answered by restoring to Rutland its historic county status. I shall say no more on that matter because my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is also present this evening, fundamentally disagrees with me on two points. I hope that he will correct me if I get them wrong. First, he thinks that Rutland should be granted unitary status and I respect his view on that. Secondly, he believes that to grant unitary status to Rutland will not affect the remainder of the county of Leicestershire.
On the recommendation to give the city of Leicester unitary status, strangely and, in my view, improperly, the Local Government Commission let it be known in Leicestershire that it intended to recommend a unitary city before it had completed its review. The city of Leicester sits at the centre of the county of Leicestershire and is, in every sense, its core. It is not like Nottingham or Derby, the two cities with which it is most frequently compared, for they are at the edge of their respective counties and have an entirely different economic and geographical relationship with them. Leicester and Leicestershire are two parts of a working whole—40 per cent. of those who work in the city live in the county—and to remove one from the other is to damage both. It is foolish to believe that joint arrangements between the city, the county and the districts is a substitute for the present system—all the more so when one realises that 68 informal and formal joint arrangements will be required to provide the services currently provided by the county council alone.
To enable the city to be viable on its own, it will need to extend its boundaries into the county. Even the Local Government Commission recognised that that would be hugely unpopular in parts of the county closest to the city. No Government can anticipate the results of any future boundary commission, nor guarantee protection from an expanding city in due course. Leicestershire's and Leicester's people wanted no change. Although the commission chose not to offer no change as an express option in its survey forms, that option received more support across the county than any of the commission's three options.
That was noticeably true in Leicester. The commission's own MORI survey showed that only 14 per cent. in the city supported its recommended structure. In a separate exercise, the commission canvassed the opinion of every city household. Despite the city council's campaign for unitary status, just 909 city residents, out of a total population of 285,400, were sufficiently moved to vote for the commission's preferred, now final, recommendation.
Those considerations may be seen as mainly technical ones. At least they were known to the commission and perhaps we can assume that they were simply set aside as the commission settled for unitary authorities in all the larger cities. I suggest that it is time to move away from the belief that those cities are somehow special cases. If the Government's declared policy of no national blueprint is to hold, it can be just as easily and just as properly extended to the cities as to the more rural areas. That

759
principle becomes all the more important when a second set of considerations is taken into account, and it is vital that it should be.
There are political considerations of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government need urgently to be apprised. Leicester is a politically unstable city, albeit under the permanent control of the Labour party. It is increasingly the victim of a combustible combination of Labour party in-fighting and factional Asian politics. That state of affairs is well known to the national as well as the local press. We have already read press stories about the behaviour of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who apparently controls the current local leadership and will influence future changes. Press stories have also appeared about the involvement in internal Labour party matters of senior city council officers.
Last autumn, I asked some pertinent parliamentary questions of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the Belgrave residents association. There are many disturbing elements to the story, most now connected to the selection of Labour candidates for the municipal elections in May, which are all currently coming to the boil.
Against that background, the city council has, first, conspicuously failed to deliver the opportunities offered by the city challenge programme. Secondly, it has failed miserably in its bid for a share of the single regeneration budget. Thirdly, it is currently failing to explain how it overspent on the refurbishment of the city's concert hall by £1.6 million and yet still failed to open the hall on time. Cancelled shows have cost the local taxpayer a further £0.33 million. Fourthly, the city council is spending £50,000 of public money to engage lawyers to argue against the professional recommendations of its own officers—officers of the county council and of an adjacent district council—that a gipsy camp on the very edge of the city's boundary should not be built. That proposal offends every planning consideration and every local resident, but according to the city's Labour politicians' dogma it should be built.
Leicester city council's only claim to credit lies in its title of "Environment City", a claim, which, frankly, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt as the gipsy camp debacle shows. It is an authority with no track record to show that it can deliver major projects or major services. Furthermore, Leicester city is a profligate authority. It routinely overspends againstits standard spending assessment—this year by 37 per cent. It must plunder its balances by more than £4 million this year. Its budget requirement per head is far in excess of other cities in the east midlands. The figure for Leicester is £193; for Nottingham, £146 and for Derby, £110. There can surely be no confidence that the city council understands the county services that it would presume to take over, let alone possesses the capability to do so. They are the most important local services, however, where cost-effectiveness is crucial.
The city's submission for unitary status showed an abject failure to grasp and to plan for the scale and complexity of the services. It fails to understand how delegation to schools operates. It has claimed that it will "improve the service", but the money for that is to be kept by the local education authority and not delegated. Secondly, the city's submission fails to recognise, let alone to understand, that almost 90 per cent. of the acute
760
health facilities of Leicestershire are based within its boundaries. The enormous consequences for hospital social work of the discharge of non-city residents from hospital are thereby ignored.
Thirdly, the city has not seriously considered the implications of disposing of 250,000 tonnes a year of household waste. It has no facilities available in Leicester. Fourthly, it seeks to take over the seven county museum buildings located in the city, but mistakenly believes that a museum service is about buildings rather than collections. It has no conception of the wider range of services that reach out from museums and no respect for the integrity of the collections.
In my view, the question is all too apparent: what sense is there in such people as those who currently control the city council in Leicester being given additional powers and budgets?
I totally refute the suggestion that giving Leicester city unitary status would in some way cut out the canker from the county. It would continue to fester. I understand that the Government's current financial regime, applied within a Leicestershire envelope, would divert additional moneys into the city from the surrounding areas. Council tax payers in those areas would see their bills not only increase to pay for the transitional costs of a unitary city, but simultaneously increase to pay for the existing level of service, at best. Meanwhile, services now provided by the county council to the people of Leicester would be put under the control of people whom I would describe as irresponsible city politicians.
Given the interdependence of the city and the rest of Leicestershire, it is important to recognise the restraint that the county council has brought to bear on the political dogma and excesses of the city council. To remove that restraint, which is what the Local Government Commission's recommendations would mean, would be to the detriment of the governance of both Leicestershire and the city.
There are two further points of great concern to me, which relate to the Leicester, East constituency Labour party and to the hon. Member for Leicester, East. From material that I have received it is now possible to say that charges of interference by the hon. Gentleman in the affairs of Leicester city council, most notably by exercising undue pressure on a former housing director and on a female former councillor, have been made.
It is fair to say that I had a half-hour discussion with the hon. Gentleman yesterday and he has shown me some further papers this evening. Having heard what he told me yesterday and having looked at the papers, I concede that he has provided an explanation—but not, in my view, a complete one. As last autumn he tabled an early-day motion about me containing information that he knew was false, and as I understand that he has telephoned the chief executive of the county council several times to ask him to drop disciplinary charges against a county council employee who is, or was, a prospective candidate for one of the city wards in his constituency, and who was, or may still be, an officer of the Leicester, East constituency Labour party, I have yet to be wholly satisfied that the explanation is a complete one.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May I take this opportunity to deny totally the charges made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is known as someone who raises such matters without substantiation? And as he has

761
given way to me, would he like to comment on a dossier that I have received about him, and a letter signed by a member of the Bosworth constituency party saying that he has asked for this debate because he seeks the nomination for the Bosworth constituency, intending to take advantage of the present position of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick)?
It would be good if the hon. and learned Gentleman gave the House an assurance that he intends to stand in the Harborough constituency in future. I raised that question with him before the debate, so he was aware of what I intended to say. I am glad that he gave me the opportunity to provide him with some information, but that is what I would expect from an honourable and learned Gentleman. Perhaps he would comment on those statements—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Is this an intervention, or has the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) finished?
Mr. Garnier: I intended only to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as the hon. Member for Leicester, East then began to make a speech, let me tell the House that what he has just said confirms my doubts about the explanation that he gave me last night. That is, I have no—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have certainly had enough personalisation now. We shall get on with the debate.
Mr. Garnier: May I simply add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said is totally false?
The Labour party nationally has consistently failed to clean up the Leicester, East constituency Labour party. It set up an official inquiry in August 1994, but that appears to have run into the sand. The Walworth road line is that accusations of ballot-rigging and membership impropriety—
Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debate on local government in Leicestershire. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough is not a member of the Leicester, East or of any other constituency Labour party. There are three other Conservative Members here, and they and I would like to participate in a debate on local government reorganisation. In a debate on local government in Leicestershire it is clearly not in order to describe the inner workings of a constituency Labour party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will decide what is in order and what is not in order but, as the hon. Gentleman says, the debate is about government in Leicestershire and, if we can get to it, it would be most helpful. There is not a lot of time in these Adjournment debates, so would the hon. and learned Gentlemen get down to the debate itself?
Mr. Garnier: It is precisely because of the way that. I employed my arguments earlier that I wish the Government to take carefully the recommendations of the local government review. As I said, accusations of ballot rigging and membership impropriety were fully investigated—
Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman took your view, Mr. Deputy
762
Speaker, which is that the debate is about local government in Leicestershire. There are hon. Gentlemen here—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a debate about local government in Leicestershire, and let us now cut the personalities out.
Mr. Garnier: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman; I am talking about the unwisdom of allowing unitary status to be given to the city of Leicester, bearing in mind the matters that I am about to discuss.
Walworth road has been informed of those accusations of ballot rigging and membership impropriety, and claims that they were fully investigated in August 1994 and were found to be groundless. Walworth road claims that what is going on is—
Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Walworth road is not a unitary council in Leicestershire county council. It is an internal matter. I could raise in Adjournment debates, plenty of internal matters concerning the Market Harborough Conservative Association. The hon. and learned Gentleman is ignoring what you have said.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that I will decide what is in order and what is out of order, but, having said that, I cannot, for the life of me, think what Walworth road has to do with local government in Leicestershire.
Mr. Garnier: I am advancing an argument that Leicester city council is not a responsible organisation and it is, as I said earlier, manned by members of the Leicester East constituency Labour party. I submit that it is not a proper organisation to be given unitary status.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a matter of local government in Leicestershire, which has been aired at length in the best known local newspaper in Leicester, the Leicester Mercury, and that many column inches have been expended on local government in Leicester on the very topic that he mentioned?
Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. That is a matter of considerable interest in Leicestershire.
I have seen two detailed confidential reports to Labour's national executive committee. They were apparently sent to every member of that committee on 19 February 1995, under cover of a letter signed by 16 senior Leicester Labour politicians. They included, not only the ousted long-serving city council leader, Peter Soulsby, but three former lord mayors of Leicester, the secretary of the Leicester district Labour party, the secretary and chief whip of the Labour group on Leicester city council, the former deputy leader and the vice-chairman of the neighbouring Leicester West constituency Labour party. Despite the seniority of those complainants and the gravity of their allegations, the Labour party shows no signs of taking any action—and that is the organisation that will eventually have control of the city of Leicester. Walworth road shows no sign of taking any action, at least before the 4 May local government elections. The national Labour party appears determined to sweep the practices of that constituency Labour party firmly under the carpet.

763
A number of the allegations that have been levelled are as follows.
Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has totally ignored what you have said from the Chair. This is a debate about local government reorganisation, not about the internal workings of the constituency party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will repeat myself. The Chair will decide what is right and what is wrong. Now can we get down to debate? I have already said that there is only a short period for this type of debate, and one tends to think that they are wasted on some occasions.
Mr. Vaz: Certainly in this case.
Mr. Garnier: As I was saying, some of the allegations that have been levelled are that there have been
"block payments for membership by particular people; the withholding of meeting notices to prevent members from voting; the exclusion of members by falsely claiming that they had resigned and the refusal to accept some people's membership without proper reason … the deliberate signing up of Party Members at false addresses to deselect councillors or … otherwise"
to
"affect the outcome of Party meetings … the use of intimidation"—
for example against Leicester city councillor Mir Juma, who has claimed that it was made clear to him that, if he did not support a specific candidate in the selection, process, the city council funding for the project that he worked for would be threatened.
Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is becoming farcical. A Minister of the Crown is waiting to discuss those important issues, and the hon. Gentleman is mentioning issues concerning councillors who are not a party to the debate and not involved—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is now beginning to lose a little patience. There is a fine line between local government and party politics in local government. We are now really stretching a little bit too far. The subject is local government in Leicester.
Mr. Garnier: It is local government in Leicestershire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which includes the city of Leicester. It is relevant because the Local Government Commission's recommendation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to accept, is to give unitary status to the city. I suggest that that is unwise for the reasons that I have advanced and am in the process of advancing—[Interruption.]
I urge the House to consider carefully the points that I have made and to ignore the somewhat hysterical interventions of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who is clearly getting upset. We must work out what is best for Leicestershire and what is best for the people of Leicester. What do people in Leicestershire and the city of Leicester want?
The recommendation is unwise. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my view that the recommendation should be postponed so that further consideration can be given to the activities, not only of the Local Government Commission or its recommendations, but to the activities of the people who are most likely—there is no point being prissy about it—to run the city once it is given unitary status.
764
There have been suggestions that the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who is clearly losing control of himself, has been involved in the overturning of the leadership of the last city council. I shall not dwell on those—all that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do is to postpone the period of consideration so that full thought can be given to the wisdom of giving full effect to the recommendations of the local government review.
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has been appointed Queen's counsel today, so it falls to me to congratulate him on his appointment. I should also say how glad I am to see present for the debate my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I know that they have a great and sincere interest in the subject.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has chosen to have a debate on the important subject of local government, particularly in the city of Leicester which borders his constituency. As he has not felt it appropriate to mention the record of Harborough district council, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the record of that local authority. Its councillors, especially the leader and committee chairmen, work hard and often unthanked. I, for one, am appreciative of what they have done and continue to do for the people of Harborough.
Although those involved in local government have the primary responsibility to ensure that they provide good and cost-effective services to local people, we in central Government also have a responsibility to ensure that the conditions in which local authorities work are right. As part of that responsibility, it is right that the structure of local government should be examined periodically to see if it is still responding to the needs and wishes of local people.
The functions and role of local authorities have always been in a state of flux—more so in recent years—and local people's expectations of them have also changed. That is not to say that local authorities are not providing good services at a reasonable cost, but there is always room for improvement. It was with that in mind that we set up the Local Government Commission in 1992. Its first remit was to review the structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements of the two-tier shire counties. Among other things, the commission was to consider the extent to which a unitary local government structure could better provide convenient and effective local government and meet the identities and interests of local communities. I certainly do not intend to rehearse all the arguments as I believe that they are well known.
I shall now turn specifically to Leicestershire. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 21 March his decisions on a number of the Local Government Commission's reports on the structure in the English shire counties. The commission's recommendations, and our decisions on them, have been based on the two criteria that any change must lead to structures which can meet the needs and wishes of local people and must secure effective and convenient local government.

765
We strongly feel, as did the Local Government Commission, that Leicester city has the right qualities to be an effective unitary authority. Following his announcement on 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Leicester city council confirming that he intends that there should be a unitary authority for Leicester. Some have suggested that our caution over unitary status for Rutland also meant that we were uncertain as to Leicester city's future status. I should like to confirm that that is not the case.
The city of Leicester has a population of 285,000. As such, it is the second largest non-metropolitan district in England and is bigger than all but four London boroughs and the majority of the metropolitan boroughs. Most of the local authorities in the county would support a unitary Leicester, as would many of the local people. The individual responses to the commission's questionnaire and the results of its MORI poll, which I believe is rather more reliable statistically, suggested that there was strong support in the city for the various options involving a unitary Leicester. The MORI poll suggested that 41 per cent. supported a unitary authority while 17 per cent. supported no change.
In addition, Leicester has a tradition of strong civic government and was a county borough. We believe that it has all the right ingredients to make it a successful unitary authority.
The point was made in some representations following the commission's final report, not least those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, that Leicestershire was unique because of the central position of Leicester in the county, geographically, administratively and culturally. We considered those points very carefully before reaching a decision on the structure of the county, but we do not consider that they negate the case for a unitary authority in Leicester.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested other reasons why there should be no structural change in Leicester. However, I believe that in making decisions about the structure of local government in England it is important to draw a distinction between local authorities and the councils and councillors who serve them. We in Government and Parliament can determine the size, shape, structure and services provided by a local authority, as a local authority's powers and duties are derived directly from Parliament, but we should do so with reference to the objective arguments for and against the various options for that particular area, not on the basis of whether we approve or disapprove of the activities of any existing council or group of councillors.
Councillors are, and should be, responsible to their local electorate. It is up to the people in each authority to elect the people who they think will best be able to make the decisions that will directly affect the quality and cost of local services. In this way, it is up to the people in
766
Leicester city—as, indeed, in any other part of the country—to determine whether their existing councillors are doing a good job.
If there are real concerns about how a local authority is running its affairs, they should be taken to the district auditor or even to the police. Councils need to satisfy district auditors that their functions are carried out in accordance with statutory requirements. This is, and always has been, the main safeguard against irresponsible action. It is also open to local people to draw to the district auditor's attention any evidence of mismanagement, be it financial or otherwise.
We intend, therefore, to put an order to Parliament for its approval, creating a unitary authority for the city. Assuming that the relevant order for Leicester city is approved by Parliament, local people in the city will have the opportunity to select their new councillors. I am sure that, as part of the campaign for those elections, a debate will ensue on the government of the city, past and present. I hope that the debate will be constructive and will aid the cause of good unitary local government for the city.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested that reorganisation would lead to financial resources being diverted into Leicester from the rest of the county because an "envelope" around the county would mean that gains by one authority would have to be paid for by reductions elsewhere in the county. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on this point. The standard spending assessments will be calculated afresh on the basis of the objective indicators for each service that an authority is providing. I cannot predict at this stage what the effects of that recalculation might be, but I can say that there will be no ring fence or envelope surrounding Leicestershire or any other county affected by reorganisation.
I should also like to say a few words about Rutland, which is ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton who speaks with sincerity and knowledge of his constituents. We realise that Rutland has a strong local identity. Indeed, it has a tradition as a separate county. We should like to see that return, but not to the detriment of local services and financial prudence. My Department has asked Rutland council to supply the assurances that we need that a unitary Rutland will be able to make good practical arrangements for the delivery of local services and that, having considered fully the financial implications, the costs can be paid for within the same financial arrangements and constraints as apply to other reorganised authorities. We shall not bring an order before the House until we are satisfied on those points.
In every county that it has been considering, the Local Government Commission's work has created a great deal of interest. Many hon. Members have been very involved in representing the interests of their communities and will continue to be—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue raised from taxing child benefit where either parent is a higher rate taxpayer and the administrative cost of doing this. [19698]

  Sir George Young
  The Government are committed to maintaining child benefit, which recognises that all families with children face additional costs.

  Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently, it would be administratively complex to tax child benefit in a way which fairly reflected family circumstances.

  However, were child benefit to be taxed, the yield for 1995–96 from taxing it at the higher rate for lone parents who are higher rate taxpayers, and for married couples where either the husband or wife is a higher rate taxpayer, would be about £320 million.

  The cost of administration would depend on the method used to collect the tax.

  Whitehall Buildings
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish detailed plans for the sale or lease of part of the Treasury's Whitehall buildings including full calculations of the economic justification of such plans or decisions. [19892]

  Mr. Nelson
  In his speech to the private finance panel conference on 24 January, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that the redevelopment of the Treasury building in Great George street will be taken forward under the private finance initiative. The process to define our requirement and conduct the competition to find a consortium to take the project forward is continuing. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider what information can be published at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will submit to Parliament for its approval or rejection any plans to sell or lease part of the Treasury's Whitehall buildings; and, under what other auspices such a transaction might be concluded. [19893]

  Mr. Nelson
  It has not yet been decided exactly how the redevelopment of the Parliament street building will be taken forward. When the decision is taken, Ministers will consider how the House should be informed.

  Public Sector Construction
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 4 April,Official Report, column 1052, what view his Department has put to the working groups as to the desirability of a single exclusive register for public sector work. [20209]
  406
  Mr. Nelson
  HM Treasury has expressed no view to the working groups on the desirability of a single register for public sector construction work. It is awaiting the outcome of the study by Capita Management Consultancy Ltd. before reaching conclusions. It has, however, indicated to the working groups that it doubts whether excluding certain companies from bidding for public sector work merely because they were not on a register could be justified on value-for-money grounds.

  Value Added Tax
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to resist any proposals for the European Commission to prevent member states from continuing to exempt those goods and services which are currently zero-rated for VAT when the transitional period agreed under the sixth VAT directive expires. [20388]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government have consistently made it clear that, as a condition of any move to a definitive system for VAT within the European Community, provision must be made for the UK to continue to apply those zero rates which are in force at the time any new system is introduced.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office executive agency for the year 1995–96. [21194]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have set the follwing key targets for the agency in 1995–96: [21194]

  Key Targets

  Operational targets Council tax

  to clear 240,000 appeals against the council tax valuation lists

  Non-domestic

  to clear 330,000 appeals in aggregate against the 1990 and the 1995 rating lists

  Direct taxes

  to undertake 70,000 valuation cases for the Inland Revenue for capital gains and inheritance tax purposes

  Financial performance and cost efficiency

  to ensure the agency's net operating cost before cost of statutory non-chargeble work is at least fully covered by receipts

  to break even from year to year within each business segment, after charging for the full cost of chargeable services including notional interest of 6 per cent. on the average working capital

  to achieve efficiency savings of 6 per cent. on the agency gross expenditure

  Quality of Service

  to reply to 100 per cent. of correspondence within 35 days of receipt

  to achieve specified time limits in 96 per cent. of cases undertaken

  to achieve specified valuation quality standard in 84 per cent. of cases carried out

  407
  Further details are set out in the agency's business plan for 1995–96, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 594–95, whether he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have decided whether the Central Statistical Office and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys should be merged. [21274]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have concluded that there would be benefits from such a merger. Subject to the views of other interested parties, we propose that on 1 April 1996 the two organisations should merge to form a new next steps agency which would be accountable to me.

  I am placing in the Library a document setting out the functions and responsibilities of the proposed new agency and the benefits which we believe would arise from the merger. Copies of this document will shortly be sent to those known to have a close interest in the work of the two organisations, with an invitation to make any comments on the proposals within three months.

  A decision on the proposed merger will be announced as soon as possible after that.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the outcome of the review of the agency status for the Central Statistical Office. [21226]

  Mr. Nelson
  I announced on 18 November 1994,Official Report, column 12, that a review of the agency status of the Central Statistical Office was being undertaken by a small team representing a cross-section of interest in the CSO and its statistics. Since then, the performance of the CSO has been evaluated and CSO activities have been subjected to the prior options tests set out in "Next Steps Review', Cm 2430. A wide-ranging consultation exercise has been carried out and the views received have been incorporated in the team's report. The team recommended that the CSO remain an agency and the Government have accepted this recommendation. A copy of the review team's report is being placed in the Library. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced today that the Government propose that, subject to the views of other interested parties, the CSO should merge with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from 1 April 1996. We therefore propose to take forward the outcome of the CSO agency review in that context.

  Official Statistics
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what guidance is given by the Head of the Government Statistical Service as to the maximum advance notice to be given to Ministers of the publication of regular statistical series; [18897]

  (2) what advance notice Ministers are given of the publication of the main monthly economic statistical series. [18896]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 April 19951]: The practice followed by the Central Statistical Office is set out in the open government White Paper, Cm 2290, and
  408
  was announced previously by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The code of practice for official statistics, a copy of which is in the Library, was released earlier this month by the Head of the Government Statistical Service.

  Data are made available to all users at the same time, although Ministers, officials and the Governor of the Bank of England may receive copies of key statistical information at 5 pm two working days before publication on a strict need-to-know basis.

  In the case of the retail prices index, although the main release of the RPI does conform to standard release practices, Treasury Ministers, named officials and the Governor of the Bank of England receive an early unpublished projection about a week in advance of the first release.

  African Development Bank
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has a vote in the election for the presidency of the African development bank; and which candidate he supports. [19916]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The president of the African development bank is elected by a majority of the total voting power of its members, including a majority of the voting power of regional members. We are giving careful consideration to the five candidates nominated for the post.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what child care facilities are currently available in the House of Commons;

  (2) what studies he has undertaken of child care facilities in other Parliament buildings; and what conclusions he has drawn from this;

  (3) what is his estimate of the number of pre-school child care places needed in the Palace of Westminster by (a) staff and (b) hon. Members; and what surveys have been done to determine likely need.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 24 April 19951]: I refer the hon. Member to the debate on child care facilities held on 12 January, Official Report, columns 323–45, and to the report on potential demand for child care facilities published by the House of Commons Commission in July 1994. Following the debate, the commission considered its policy on child care facilities and decided to implement a child care voucher scheme for staff of the House of Commons Service under arrangements set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on 2 March 1995, Official Report, column 637. No studies of child care facilities in other Parliament buildings have been undertaken.

  Staff of the House have now been circulated with details of the voucher scheme, which will operate with effect from 1 April 1995.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number and location of Chessington Computer Centre, Civil Service College, HMSO, Occupational Health Service, Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [19966]

  Mr. Horam
  Of the agencies listed, only HMSO and the Occupational Health and Safety Agency have had offices in Scotland during the last five years. As the question concerns operational matters, I have asked the chief executives of HMSO and OHSA to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 21 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply, in respect of HMSO, to your question tabled on 18 April (No. 196) regarding offices opened and closed and the numbers of jobs lost from and gained in Scotland.
  HMSO Scotland trades in a dynamic environment and provides a wide range of services to Scottish public sector customers from its South Gyle, Edinburgh, headquarters. The picture over the past five years shows a net gain of 13 jobs. The detail is as follows:

  Posts

  Work transferred

  Jobs lost

  Bookshop Assistant

  1

  Standing orders for HMSO Books and the supply of non-Scottish titles to HMSO Agents transferred to our Publications Centre in London to obviate double-handling and service delays.

  Jobs gained

  Accountant and Assistant

  2

  Responsibilities devolved from Norwich HQ to increase local control of business operational decisions.

  Debt Management Staff

  2

  Information Systems Bureau Staff

  5

  Customers Services Staff

  5

  North of England office supplies order processing: closer proximity to customers.

  14

  No offices were opened or closed as a result of these changes, but three existing premises ie warehouse, printing press and offices were replaced by the new HQ building at South Gyle in 1993.

  Letter from J. L. Gordon to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 24 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your question on behalf of Dr. McCloy, Chief Executive of the Agency, who is on sick leave.
  Since the Agency moved its Headquarters function from London to Edinburgh in 1989, to join the existing Regional Office, there have been no further moves into or out of Scotland.
  Prior to 1980, six (6) staff were based in Scotland, and the relocation of the Headquarters unit brought an additional nineteen (19) posts. Although OHSA is a relatively small agency the intervening period has seen a modest increase, including senior
  410
  posts, and the number of staff now based in Edinburgh is thirty-one (31) with a further medical officer due to take up post later this year. There is one post located in Glasgow.

  Official Report'
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the institutions which subscribed to the Official Report in the 1978–79 Session and in the 1993–94 Session; and what were the prices of annual subscriptions in 1978–79 and 1993–94 in cash terms and at constant prices. [20016]

  Mr. Horam
  HMSO does not keep lists of subscribers to the Official Report other than for current dispatches. Details for 1978–79 and 1993–94 cannot therefore be provided.

  The price of the annual subscription to the daily Official Report in 1978–79 was £93 and in 1993–94 £1,275. The sum of £93 is equivalent to just over £265 in 1993–94 prices. The subsidy needed in 1978–79 to maintain Hansard at this artificially low price was £2.4 million, equivalent to over £6.8 million in 1993–94. The actual subsidy in 1993–94 was nil.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what profit or loss was made from producing and publishing the Official Report in 1978–79 and in 1993–94. [20017]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1978–79, the subsidy voted to reimburse HMSO for losses arising from the sale of the Official Report of both Houses at less than the costs of production and distribution stood at £2.4 million. This subsidy was systematically eliminated between 1983—when it had reached £6 million—and 1991, by a combination of productivity improvements and price increases.

  The financial position in 1993–94 was distorted by significant investments in new technology and redundancy payments, following HMSO's successful in-house bids for two Hansard market tests; as a result, there is now the prospect that a profit may be made on Hansard for the first time ever next year.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidelines he has issued with respect to in-house bids in market-testing exercises and the circumstances in which there should not be in-house bids in such exercises. [20867]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance on in-house bids is set out in the "Government's Guide to Market Testing', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Examples of the circumstances in which in-house bids might not be considered are set out in the White Paper "Taking forward Continuity and Change', Cm 2748. They include occasions when a Department judges that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs or has a capacity to invest in new technology or where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to a department's functions. It is, however, for individual Departments to decide in each case whether or not to consider an in-house bid.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each annual departmental report, the estimated cost of printing and publishing last year the total sales to(a) the Department and (b) other buyers; and if HMSO covered its costs. [20187]

  Mr Horam
  Sales to the author Department and to other buyers for each 1994 departmental report are as follows:

  Cm No.

  Author Department

  Sales to Author Department1

  Other Sales2

  2501

  Defence

  500

  699

  2502

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2,770

  632

  2503

  Agriculture

  776

  593

  2504

  Trade and Industry

  3,850

  955

  2505

  Employment

  982

  758

  2506

  Transport

  530

  972

  2507

  Environment

  1,540

  955

  2508

  Home Office

  806

  613

  2509

  Lord Chancellor and Law Officers

  206

  606

  2510

  Education

  705

  834

  2511

  National Heritage

  825

  688

  2512

  Health

  1,157

  855

  2513

  Social Security

  1,870

  807

  2514

  Scottish Office

  35

  694

  2515

  Welsh Office

  450

  628

  2516

  Northern Ireland Office

  137

  681

  2517

  Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments

  301

  554

  2518

  Cabinet Office etc

  340

  582

  2519

  Statistical Supplement

  263

  857

  Complete Sets

  Nil

  222

  1Initial supplies only, any subsequent orders are not recorded.

  2 As at 20 April 1995.

  The printing costs result from competitive tendering undertaken by HMSO and are therefore commercially confidential. Printing and publishing costs were borne by HMSO, which aims to recover these from the sales revenue.

  Research Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the ways in which his Department disseminates information from EU Research Council meetings to potential beneficiaries in British industry. [20242]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments concerned inform British companies about the opportunities available under the framework of EU research programmes agreed by the Research Council, principally by means of publications, supported by a programme of information days and seminars.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20493]
  412
  Mr. Horam
  The executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Public Service and Science are as follows:

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  The Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Medical Research Council

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

  The research councils are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Each council is required under the terms of the Science and Technology Act 1965 to publish an annual report and annual accounts. None of the councils is required to publish minutes or agendas of council meetings or registers of its members' interests.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20652]

  Mr. Horam
  The executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Public Service and Science are as follows:

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Medical Research Council

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  The research councils are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  (a) The councils are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner;

  (b) the councils are not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission;

  (c) the councils are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office;

  (d) there are no statutory provisions, but the code of practice on open government applies to all councils; each council is required, under the terms of the Science and Technology Act 1965, to publish an annual report and annual accounts.

  (e) the councils publish performance indicators in their annual corporate plans;

  (f) the councils are encouraged to adopt charter principles.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision the national health service makes for patients awaiting organ transplants requiring multiple prescriptions who are disqualified from free prescriptions because they are above income support levels, what plans she has to revise the specified conditions list to make patients awaiting organ transplants exempt from
  413
  prescription charges either totally or above a specified level; and if she will make a statement; [19038]

  (2) when the last review of the specified conditions list was carried out; on what date changes resulting from this review were implemented; how the review and its implementation impacted on those awaiting organ transplants; how the review and its implementation impacted upon those whose medical condition precludes the reasonable prospect of an organ transplant; and if she will make a statement. [19036]

  Mr. Malone
  Patients awaiting organ transplants who are not otherwise exempt or entitled to charge remission may qualify for free prescriptions if they have any one of the specified medical conditions, including a permanent fistula requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance, and hold an exemption certificate issued by a family health services authority. The specified medical conditions were last reviewed in 1993 as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure and we have

  £1000s

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  UK

  Foreign

  UK

  Foreign

  UK

  Foreign

  Central Department

  1,497

  11,253

  1,456

  39

  1,379

  80

  Agencies

  NHS Estates2

  148

  3

  260

  —

  221

  28

  Medicines ControlAgency2

  78

  158

  85

  252

  92

  173

  NHS Pensions Agency

  12

  —

  26

  —

  23

  —

  Medical Devices Agency3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  Notes:

  1 This figure includes the cost of foreign travel as well as subsistence as these were not separately identified in 1992–93.

  2 The figures for NHS Estates and the Medicines Control Agency include the cost of travel as well as subsistence as these are not separately identified.

  3 The Medical Devices Agency was established on 27 September 1994. The figures for 1994–95 reported for the agency were for 27 September 1994 to 31 March 1995 only. Prior to this, its figures were included in those for the central Department.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number and location of Medicines Control Agency, NHS Estates and NHS Pensions Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if she will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20302]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 816, what representations have been made to her about the difficulties experienced by sufferers from asbestos-related diseases in obtaining such diagnosis as an explanation of their health problems. [19927]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no such representations.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response her Department has received to health service schemes under the private finance initiative. [19962]
  414
  no plans for change. Prescription prepayment certificates continue to offer real savings for anyone not entitled to free prescriptions who needs frequent or extensive medication. Coupled with the wide-ranging arrangements for charge exemption and remission, they ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary prescribed medication for financial reasons.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total amount paid by her central Department and each agency for which she 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. [19555]

  Mr. Sackville
  The amounts paid by the Department and its agencies in subsistence allowances for travel in the United Kingdom and outside for 1992–93 to 1994–95 were as follows:

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 21 April,Official Report, columns 312–13.

  Confidentiality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish a further paper concerning the confidentiality of health information; and if she will make a statement. [20040]

  Mr. Sackville
  Draft Guidance, "Confidentiality, Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information', was issued for consultation in August 1994. The consultation period closed on 9 December. We are considering the many responses received and will be making any appropriate revisions to the guidance in due course.

  Hospital Matrons
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will re-establish the position of matron in NHS hospitals. [19902]

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact titles and responsibilities of senior nurses are for local decision. The title of matron may be used if appropriate. Every national health service trust is required to have a senior nurse as an executive director.

  Health Authority Allocations
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what 1995–96 cash allocation has been made to each district health authority, including fundholding GP practices within the authority's area for hospital and community health services. [20022]

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1995–96 recurrent allocations for resident population to district health authorities for hospital and community health services will be placed in the Library.

  Hepatitis C
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on the number of people in England and Wales affected by hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood prior to the introduction of screening in 1991. [20284]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made by her Department's working group into research regarding the bacteria strain in beef which has caused deaths; [20462]

  (2) if she will list the members of the committee that was set up to investigate health hazards in respect of bacterium, E coli 0157; what are the members' qualifications; when the report will be published; and if she will make a statement. [20727]

  Mr. Sackville
  The report of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food on verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli—VTEC—will be published shortly with the Government's response to its recommendations. Details of the membership of the ACMSF and its working group on VTEC are contained in the ACMSF's annual report 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from doctors about the bacteria strain linked to beef responsible for deaths; and what trends there have been in the number of deaths caused. [20461]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no such representations. Information on deaths associated with verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli is not available centrally. However, available evidence does not suggest a change in the mortality associated with infection.

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances interest is payable on back pay arising from clinical grading appeals which are upheld. [20618]

  Mr. Malone
  Retrospective payments to national health service staff do not attract interest.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require all NHS trusts to display on the exterior hospital name boards the names and home telephone numbers of the chairman and chief executive. [20692]
  416
  Mr. Malone
  The provision of the names and office telephone numbers of board members and senior officers of national health service trusts is detailed as an example of good practice in the new code of openness in the NHS published in April.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service trusts have(a) completed contracts with purchasers for the year 1995–96 and (b) not yet completed contracts for 1995–96; and how many in the latter category are in the process of arbitration. [19880]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take action to ensure that the fee obtained by the Paymaster General for sending private pension correspondence to NHS pensioners is paid into the NHS benevolent fund. [20677]

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice was given by her Department to the Bristol royal infirmary on the future programme of paediatric cardiac surgery for(a) switch, (b) atrial ventricular canal, (c) ventricular septal defects and (d) tetralogy of fallow. [20508]

  Mr. Sackville
  A protocol covering the future performance of all complex paediatric cardiac surgery in United Bristol Healthcare trust hospitals has been agreed jointly between my Department, the Director of Public Health Medicine for the south and west region, South and West regional health authority and the UBHT pending the arrival of the newly appointed paediatric cardiac surgeon.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department has taken to continue to monitor the success rate of paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol royal infirmary; and what steps she has taken to satisfy herself that the procedures are carried out correctly. [20510]

  Mr. Sackville
  Monitoring the results of treatment is an integral part of clinical audit and as such is the responsibility of health professionals. Audit methodology is continually improving, but there are at present no agreed national standards for paediatric cardiac surgery. Improved audit arrangements for paediatric cardiac surgery are being agreed between the United Bristol Healthcare trusts and Avon Health. In addition, my Department has just provided funding for a pilot project to assess the feasibility of establishing a national central cardiac audit database to enable cardiac surgeons and cardiologists to monitor the outcome of all cardiac interventions against agreed standards.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department recommended following the visit by Stewart Hunter, Sir Keith Ross, Sir Terence English and David Hamilton in 1992 to investigate the Bristol royal infirmary's paediatric cardiac record. [20512]

  Mr. Sackville
  No such visit took place.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has received on the reasons why the Senning operation was carried out in much larger numbers
  417
  at the Bristol royal infirmary as compared to switch operators in the 1990s and on the relative life expectancies and success rate. [20509]

  Mr. Sackville
  These were matters of clinical judgement.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she was informed of the record of open heart surgery on children at the Bristol royal infirmary in the 1990s. [20511]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department was informed in July 1994 that there was a difference of professional opinion about the results of an audit of paediatric cardiac surgery at Bristol royal infirmary. The United Bristol Healthcare trust management was asked to resolve the matter.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20498]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is as follows. Non departmental public bodies that:

  Publish annual reports:

  Under a statutory requirement:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Medical Practices Committee

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Publish annual accounts:

  Under a statutory requirement:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  Publish the minutes of meetings:

  Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Publish the agendas for meetings:

  Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  Voluntarily:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  418

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Publish registers of members' interests:

  Under a statutory requirement:

  None.

  Voluntarily:

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20658]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is as follows:

  Those non-departmental public bodies that are:

  Subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office:

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Subject to statutory provisions for open government:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Subject to performance indicators:

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  National Biological Standards Board

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Subject to provisions under the citizens charter:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental
  Education.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment she has made of the 1976 Royal College of Physicians study of fluoridation in 1976; and if she will order an inquiry as to the safety of fluoride in humans. [20797]
  419
  Mr. Malone
  The 1976 report "Fluoride, Teeth and Health', from the Royal College of Physicians of London, concluded that fluoridation is safe and effective in reducing dental caries, and recommended fluoridation of water supplies in the United Kingdom where the fluoride level is appreciably below 1 mg per litre.

  Government policy continues to be in line with this recommendation. Water fluoridation at 1 mg per litre is considered, on the scientific evidence currently available, to be safe for humans, and is an effective way of improving oral health. The Department of Health will continue to monitor information relevant to the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April. [19504]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April 1995. [19506]

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

  Downing Street Admissions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many individuals accompanying delegations of hon. Members were refused admission to Downing street on 19 April; and on what grounds they were refused entry; [20364]

  (2) what dress restrictions govern admission of individuals to Downing street; [20365]

  (3) when the decision was taken to restrict delegations to 10 Downing street to six people; who took it; and if he will list all restrictions applying to hon. Members. [20363]

  The Prime Minister
  Three members of the public were refused entry to Downing street on 19 April because they were dressed as foxes.

  Since 1980s, if petitioners have wished to wear costume, it has been the practice to restrict admission to those wearing national dress or working uniforms. This is to maintain the dignity of the street and its surroundings. Delegations are normally restricted to six people in order to ensure the staff in the street can cope during busy periods.

  There are no written restrictions on access to the street by hon. Members, but entry must remain at the discretion of the police on duty.

  VE Day Commemorations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state which of the VE commemorations Her Majesty the Queen will be participating in the United Kingdom and overseas as (i) Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (ii) head of all those countries of which she is Head of State, (iii) Head of the Commonwealth and (iv) on which combination of (i) to (iii) above; and if he will make a statement. [20856]
  420
  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty the Queen, who is Head of the Commonwealth, will be participating in the VE day commemorations in the United Kingdom as Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Her Majesty will not participate in VE day commemorations outside the United Kingdom.

  Governor-Generals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on whose advice governor-generals make visits in their capacity as representatives of Her Majesty the Queen to overseas countries; and if he will make a statement. [20860]

  The Prime Minister
  Governor-generals make official visits to overseas countries in their capacity as representative of Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of her Ministers in the realm concerned.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if the governor-generals of the countries of which Her Majesty is Head of State are deemed for the purpose of the VE commemorations to be Head of State in their own right; and if he will make a statement. [20855]

  The Prime Minister
  The only governor-general of Her Majesty's other realms who is expected to attend the VE day commemorations in London on 6 and 7 May is the Governor-General of Jamaica. He will attend in his capacity as Her Majesty's representative in Jamaica on behalf of the people of that country.

  Her Majesty the Queen
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if a state visit made by an overseas Head of State to Britain is a visit to(a) Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (b) Great Britain hosted by Her Majesty the Queen, (c) Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of all those countries of which she is Head of State, (d) Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth or (e) in a combination of the above. [20857]

  (2) if on the occasion of the state visit of (a) the President of Zimbabwe in May 1994 and (b) the King and Queen of Norway in July 1994, the Queen received these guests in her capacity as (i) Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (ii) Head of State of all those countries of which she is Head of State, (iii) as Head of the Commonwealth on (iv) or which combination of (i) to (iii) above; and if he will make a statement. [20858]

  The Prime Minister
  State visitors to the United Kingdom are invited by Her Majesty the Queen, who is Head of the Commonwealth, as Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on behalf of the nation as a whole following consultation with her Ministers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) by what method and which Heads of government the Queen is advised before and during an official visit to republics where she is making the visit as Head of State and not merely as the Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [20861]

  (2) on the occasion of the visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Russia in October 1994 and South Africa in March 1995, if the Queen was received in her capacity as (i) Head of State of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

  421
  (ii) Head of State of all those countries of which she is Head of State, (iii) as Head of the Commonwealth, or (iv) on which combination of (i) to (iii) above; and if he will make a statement. [20859]

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty the Queen makes official visits overseas in her capacity as Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on the advice of her Ministers in the United Kingdom unless the visit is to one of Her Majesty's other realms. In those latter cases, her visit is as Head of State of the realm concerned, and is made on the advice of her Ministers in that realm.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the factors which have led to World Food Programme trucks not reaching their targets in Rwanda; and what international action is being taken to allow them to progress to camps for Rwandan refugees in Zaire. [20251]

  Mr. Baldry
  The rapid response from the UK and other donors to a recent World Food Programme—United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appeal means that supplies are now assured until October. However, Rwanda's landlocked position has made it difficult to gauge the amount needed in the supply pipeline so as to ensure a continuous flow of food at the required level to people in need. On the question of access to camps in Zaire, we are in close touch with the WFP to see if we can help find a solution to the closing of the border. In the meantime, WFP is actively exploring alternative routes.

  Botswana
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government and by the international community to alleviate drought in Botswana. [20252]

  Mr. Baldry
  No formal appeal for assistance has been made by the Government of Botswana, but we have had discussions on the drought with them, and other donors, and are ready to consider a request for assistance. There is unlikely to be a need for food aid as Botswana, in a non-drought year, already imports some 90 per cent. of its food requirements. It is therefore likely that any UK assistance will focus on technical and logistical support for food distribution to vulnerable communities.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways the Government of Kenya(a) meet and (b) do not meet the yardstick of good governance for the receipt of bilateral or multilateral aid. [19909]

  Mr. Baldry
  Kenya's governance has improved significantly over recent years, which have seen the restoration of multi-party politics, serious discussion of 422
  issues of substance in Parliament and a much freer press. But concerns remain on a number of issues, including the status of the Government of Kenya—United Nations Development Programme displaced persons programme, the frustration by some officials of legitimate political activity, the arrests of opposition MPs, and corruption. The continuation of our substantial aid programme at current levels will depend on further progress on these and other governance issues.

  India
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to India to raise environmental standards of coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are helping the Indian authorities to improve environmental auditing and dry ash disposal. In collaboration with the World bank, we have also funded work on environmental management of coal-fired power stations in Singrauli; and are contributing to a programme in Orissa which includes renovation of existing thermal generation and construction of new capacity to current environmental standards. Other projects are under consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Link Outlets
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants from his Department have been seconded to, or are otherwise employed within, business link outlets. [18110]

  Mr. Page
  Thirty-nine civil servants have been co-located in business link outlets as at 31 March 1995. Annexe A gives a regional breakdown by Government office of staff co-locations to business links.

  Government office for:

  Number of staff co-located

  East Midlands

  8

  London

  0

  South East

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  South West

  1

  East

  2

  North West

  6

  West Midlands

  13

  North East

  2

  Merseyside

  2

  Franchising
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to protect franchisees from false claims by franchisers. [20029]

  Mr. Page
  Franchising in the United Kingdom is subject to the general law of contract and other general laws applying to commercial relationships. There are no current plans to introduce specific legislation for franchise agreements.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many actions were taken by his Department, against franchisers, for false claims in 1994. [20030]
  423
  Mr. Page
  This information is not held in the form requested.

  The Department records only action taken under the Companies Act 1948 and 1985. These figures are not broken down by type of business.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of his Department's grant was made available to the franchise centre. [20031]

  Mr. Page
  The franchise centre received £10,000 regional selective assistance in 1993 to aid the establishment of 6.5 permanent jobs.

  Manufacturing Company Wages
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average percentage increase in real wages since 1979 of chairs of the top 500 United Kingdom manufacturing companies. [20558]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government do not compile statistics of the type requested by the hon. Member.

  Murvi Motorcaravans
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete his investigations into the matters raised by the hon. Member for South Hams in his

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  CPS

  353,492

  n/a

  14,140

  499,405

  26,468

  18,496

  444,531

  20,418

  12,348

  23,433

  15,985

  22,406

  15,752

  T. SOL.

  26,237

  8,418

  4,373

  4,318

  2,931

  1,439

  4,448

  3,033

  2,224

  6,313

  1,367

  1,415

  5,860

  20

  —

  GPL1

  —

  —

  —

  19,878

  nil

  29,391

  9,513

  29,391

  nil

  SFO

  26,245

  2,214

  7,184

  27,001

  26,219

  13,501

  22,792

  6,151

  11,396

  —

  28,733

  —

  —

  —

  LSLO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Government Property Lawyers was established on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [19548]

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  CPS1

  894,140

  788,055

  1,072,030

  T.SOL.

  10,217

  9,893

  4,066

  864

  2,969

  10,637

  GPL2

  —

  —

  4,155

  NIL

  3,566

  NIL

  SFO

  38,255

  14,639

  71,812

  22,133

  62,920

  19,302

  LSLO

  Included inT.SOL. above

  938

  1,417

  1,030

  1,526

  1 Aggregate for (a) and (b).

  2 Government Property Lawyers was established on 1 April 1993.

  424
  letters to him of 4 April and 13 April regarding the refusal of his office in Plymouth to award a regional selective assistance grant to Murvi Motorcaravans. [20590]

  Mr. Page
  My investigations into this case are complete and I replied to my hon. Friend on 24 April 1995.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [19666]

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the Departments and agency for which I am responsible—Crown Prosecution Service, Treasury Solicitor's Department, Government Property Lawyers agency, Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—is given in the table.

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the Departments and agency for which I am responsible—the Crown Prosecution Service, Treasury Solicitor's Department, Government Property Lawyers agency, Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—is given in the table.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [19668]

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the Departments and agency for which I am responsible—Crown Prosecution Service, Treasury Solicitor's Department, Government Property Lawyers agency,

  Overtime

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) hours

  (b) £

  (a) hours

  (b) £

  (a) hours

  (b) £

  CPS

  n/a

  587,268

  n/a

  685,179

  n/a

  523,439

  T.SOL.

  2,589.0

  24,025

  3,027.5

  30,220

  1,701.5

  18,190

  GPL1

  —

  —

  313.0

  2,873

  286.0

  2,555

  SFO

  5,236.0

  42,872

  6,711.0

  55,748

  5,795.0

  55,188

  LSLO

  1,781.5

  14,426

  1,943.5

  17,279

  1,435.25

  12,990

  1 Government Property Lawyers was established on 1 April 1993.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific recent representations have been made to Iran regarding its nuclear programme. [20362]

  Mr. David Davies
  We have made no specific representations to Iran regarding its nuclear programme, but we have made public our concerns at reports that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 18 January that the US assessment indicating that Iran could possess a nuclear explosive device within seven to 15 years gave serious cause for concern.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements Her Majesty's Government intend to make to permit international safeguards inspectors to verify the United Kingdom's cessation of production of fissile material for explosive uses. [20384]

  Mr. David Davis
  The announcement that the UK has ceased production of fissile material for explosive purposes was made to show our commitment to the negotiation of a treaty banning such productions. We anticipate that negotiations will begin in June at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. We intend that the treaty should include appropriate verification arrangements.

  Russia (Nuclear Safeguards)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to fulfil the commitment made by the European Union
  426
  Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—is given in the tables.

  Sickness1

  1992 days

  1993 days

  CPS

  48,213.00

  53,495.00

  T.SOL.

  2,965.83

  3,098.94

  GPL2

  —

  868.00

  SFO

  842.42

  1,609.90

  LSLO

  18.75

  56.55

  1 Figures provided by the Occupational Health Service agency. Figures for 1994 are not yet available. No records are available which give figures for a monetary equivalent.

  2 Government Property Lawyers was established on 1 April 1993.

  Energy Commissioner on the nuclear safeguards conference in St. Petersburg on 10 April that the European Union would assist the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States in developing a regional safeguards system; and whether he raised this matter, in regard to its relevance to combating illicit trafficking in nuclear materials, with his Russian counterpart at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York.

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK—through the DTI, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the AEA—has been closely involved in international programmes of safeguards collaboration with nuclear authorities and facility operators in both Russia and Kazakhstan. UK efforts initially focused on the provision of training seminars covering a wide range of safeguards issues. Direct collaboration between UK and Russian and Kazakh operators on facility specific safeguards systems is now being developed as a result of these seminars. The Russian Foreign Minister was not in New York at the time of the Foreign Secretary's visit.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in establishing Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors of the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute following the decision of the Budapest summit last November; what is the United Kingdom's contribution to it; and if he will make a statement. [20474]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Budapest summit of the OSCE in December 1994 decided that an agreement between the parties on the cessation of hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would be a necessary precondition for the deployment of a multi-national peacekeeping operation. Although a ceasefire has now been in place for almost a year, no agreement has yet been reached. The OSCE Minsk group is actively engaged, with our full support, in efforts to promote an agreement.
  427
  We have offered to send a team of signallers to a monitoring mission, if required. We are providing personnel for the high-level planning group which is working in Vienna on a possible peacekeeping operation.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Azerbaijan; and what plans he has to visit the country in the near future. [20472]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We enjoy excellent relations with Azerbaijan. Bilateral trade is increasing rapidly. We have provided substantial humanitarian aid and we have a programme of technical assistance through the know-how fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs does not at present have plans to visit Azerbaijan.

  Non-proliferation Treaty Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the non-proliferation treaty conference in New York on 18 April. [20382]

  Mr. David Davis
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the well-being and comfort of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work-station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles street, London.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are designated smoking areas, and smoking is permitted in single-occupancy offices.

  Smoking is not permitted in shared offices, or at meetings, or in other common areas apart from designated smoking areas.

  In general, rest, recreation and refreshment facilities either have smoking and no-smoking areas or do not permit any smoking.

  Leader of the Opposition (Briefing
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the extent of the briefing Foreign Office officials or Ministers provided to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for this trip to Washington in 1986. [20610]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no record of any such briefing.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what briefing the United Kingdom ambassador to the United States of America provided to press during the right hon. Member for Sedgefield's visit to Washington in 1986 as to whether the visit was official. [20581]

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Georgia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a428
  statement on relations with Georgia; and what plans he has to visit the country in the near future. [20471]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We enjoy excellent relations with Georgia. A British embassy will open in Tbilisi later this year; Georgia intends to open an embassy in the UK soon. Head of State Eduard Shevardnadze visited the UK as a guest of Government in February. We have provided substantial humanitarian aid, and are developing a programme of technical assistance through the know-how fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs does not at present have plans to visit Georgia.

  Armenia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Armenia; and what plans he has to visit the country in the near future. [20473]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We enjoy excellent relations with Armenia. A British embassy will open in Yerevan later this year. We have provided substantial humanitarian aid for Armenia, and are developing a programme of technical assistance through the know-how fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs does not at present have plans to visit Armenia.

  Unitary Tax Campaign
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's ambassador attended all the official meetings held by the three hon. Members in Washington DC in May 1986 as part of the unitary tax campaign; and what was the purpose of such attendance. [20611]

  Mr. Baldry
  A visit by parliamentary supporteurs of the unitary tax campaign took place on 19 and 20 June 1986. We no longer have records of which, if any, of the delegation's official meetings the ambassador attended.

  European Union Legislation
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is considering for changing the system of comitology in EU decision making; and if he will make a statement.
  [20245]

  Mr. David Davis
  None. Comitology was re-examined as recently as last year. In December, the Council, Commission and European Parliament agreed to a limited EP role in comitology measures stemming from co-decision legislations. It was agreed that the European Parliament should be able to give an opinion on the few measures of general application which are proposed under the Commission's delegated powers in co-decision legislation, when, following a negative opinion, these measures are referred by the relevant comitology committee back to the Council for decision.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual

  429
  accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and public bodies sponsored by the FCO, including the whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory Overseas Development Administration, is shown in the requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20497]

  Publishes

  Annual Reports

  Annual Accounts

  Minutes

  Agendas

  Registers

  British Council

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  1No

  British-Russia Centre

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (voluntary)

  No

  No

  No

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Yes (voluntary)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  2No

  1No

  No

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  Yes (statutory)

  Yes (statutory)

  No

  No

  No

  1 Available for inspection on request.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office,

  Subject to:

  Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner

  Scrutiny by Audit Commission

  Scrutiny by HAO

  Statutory Provisions for open government

  Performance Indicators

  Provisions under citizens charter

  British Council

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Britain-Russia Centre

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Crown Agent's Holding and Realisation Board

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Tibet
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Tibet with the Government of the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement on the issues which were discussed. [20798]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised Tibet with the Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in New York on 18 April during discussions on a broad range of bilateral and international issues.

  Ambassadors' Pay
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the pay of the most senior ambassadors.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 9 February,Official Report, columns
  430
  Mr. Goodlad
  The answer for non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the FCO, including the Overseas Development Administration, is shown in the table.

  (d) statutory provisions for open government,
  (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20657]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The answer for non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the FCO, including the Overseas Development Administration, is shown in the table.

  345–47, that parallel arrangements to those established for the pay of permanent secretaries would be made for the most senior ambassadors—that is, those with a rank equivalent to permanent secretary.

  A remuneration committee has now been established to advise me on the pay of those ambassadors. The full terms of reference are given. Although the final decisions on the pay of individual ambassadors will be for me to take, I would expect normally to accept the recommendations of the committee.

  As in the case of the remuneration committee dealing with permanent secretaries' pay, there will be five members of the committee, three from the private sector, the head of the diplomatic service and the chief clerk of the diplomatic service. The recommendations made to me will be those of the three private sector members and the terms of reference provide that the chairman be drawn from their number.
  431
  Sir Denys Henderson has agreed to be the first chairman of the committee. Sir Michael Perry and Mr. Allan Gormly have also agreed to serve on it. I am grateful to all of them. The presence of Sir Michael Perry, who is also chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body and of the Committee on Permanent Secretaries Pay, will help ensure that awards made to senior ambassadors are in balance with those made to permanent secretaries.

  The salaries of individual ambassadors will be published in £5,000 bands in the departmental report each year.

  TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE REMUNERATION COMMITTEE
  Membership
  1. There shall be a committee on the pay of grade I ambassadors of whom the members will be:
  —Three members drawn from the private sector, including
  —One member of the Senior Salaries Review Body
  —the head of the diplomatic service
  —the chief clerk of the diplomatic service.
  2. The chairman of the committee will be one of the private sector members.
  Remit
  3. The purpose of the committee is for the private sector members to make proposals to the Secretary of State on the pay of individual grade 1 ambassadors save in so far as their pay is determined by the terms of an individual appointment.
  4. The pay of grade 1 ambassadors will be accommodated within the pay range of permanent secretaries to be determined from time to time by the Government. The committee may not propose other forms of remuneration or benefit than pay falling within this range.
  5. In making proposals the committee shall take the following factors into account in relation to individuals:
  —the relative level of responsibility of the post occupied;
  —the performance of the embassy in meeting its objectives and executing the policy of Ministers and, in particular, the personal contribution the individual has made in terms of policy advice and efficient management, including where appropriate meeting the measured objectives of the embassy;
  —the particular demands placed on the individual, including those stemming from his or her public role;
  —the experience of the individual in the present post or in others occupied at grade I level;
  —in the case of those newly promoted, the level of pay in their previous post;
  —the individual's own assessment of his/her achievements and the main requirements of the job.
  6. The committee shall also take into account these wider factors:
  —the pay levels of permanent secretaries in the home civil service and of other senior staff in the diplomatic and civil services, and in particular those immediately below grade I/permanent secretary;
  —the increase recently given, or likely to be given in the period ahead, to DS staff and civil servants generally, and the pay progression available to them;
  —the extent of the change for any individual as well as the absolute level of pay, and the presentation of both;
  —any movement in the pay range as a whole;
  —the nature and terms of the civil service pension scheme;
  —any statements made by the Government on public sector pay;
  —the maintenance of the confidence on the individual, that recommendations have been properly and fairly determined;
  —the need to ensure recommendations are consistent with the Government's equal opportunities policies.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about arrests of opposition members of Parliament. [19908]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made clear to the Kenyan authorities at the highest level our concerns at the arrest of opposition members of Parliament, and the damage such actions do to Kenya's image in the international community.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the representations made to the Government of Kenya by the American ambassador in Nairobi about the arrest of six trustees of the Mzangaza Trust. [19910]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our high commission in Nairobi contacted the Kenyan authorities at a high level to register our strong concern at these arrests as soon as they heard the news. The six trustees were released shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the views expressed in the Catholic bishops' recent pastoral letter in Kenya are in accord with the reports he receives from the high commission in Nairobi. [19928]

  Mr. Baldry
  We receive regular reports from our high commission in Nairobi. They cover various issues including those raised in the Catholic bishops' recent pastoral letter. We have noted the concerns expressed by the bishops, many of which are widely shared.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been put forward by the United Nation's special envoy to Sierra Leone for making progress to a peaceful settlement. [19912]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General continues his good offices mission.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support the facilitation by the international community of the establishment of a Government of national unity in Sierra Leone prior to the holding of free and fair elections. [19911]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is our policy to support efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict. We also look to the Sierra Leone Government to press ahead with the transition to civilian democratic rule.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to the Thames Valley police force of security provided for Ministers and members of the royal family; and what additional allocation of resources from his Department the Thames Valley police force receives in relation to these responsibilities. [19886]

  Mr. Howard
  For security reasons, it is not the practice to disclose the cost to individual police authorities of
  433
  carrying out protection duties. Thames Valley police's known security commitments were taken into account under the police funding formula for 1995–96.

  Police Resignations
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list separately for each of the last six years for which figures are available the number of police officers in England and Wales who(a) resigned after criminal charges had been preferred against them but before such proceedings were completed, (b) resigned after disciplinary charges had been preferred against them but before such proceedings had been completed, (c) were under suspension at the time of their resignation and
  (d) resigned while under investigation for disciplinary matters. [20032]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for the number of officers in England and Wales, excluding the Metropolitan police, who resigned after criminal or disciplinary charges were preferred but before such proceedings were completed are set out in the table. Information collected centrally in respect of officers who resigned while under suspension is restricted to those resignations before disciplinary charges were preferred.

  In 1993, there were 56 officers in England and Wales who resigned while under investigation for disciplinary matters but before disciplinary charges were preferred, including 13 in the Metropolitan police. Figures for earlier years are not available centrally.

  Resignations among officers in England and Wales, excluding the Metropolitan police, facing criminal or disciplinary proceedings

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Resignations

  25

  17

  22

  21

  20

  15

  after criminal

  1(4)

  charges

  preferred but

  before

  completed.

  Resignations

  20

  21

  32

  12

  15

  18

  after

  1(10)

  disciplinary

  charges

  preferred but

  before

  completed.

  Resignations

  33

  37

  31

  14

  24

  19

  while under

  1(3)

  suspension, but

  before charges

  preferred.

  1 Figures for the Metropolitan police—only available from 1993.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of police complaints, or cases of complaint, in each of the last five years for which figures are available which led to police officers being charged with(a) a criminal offence, or, if the information is held or recorded in a suitable form, (b) a non—traffic criminal offence, and (c) a traffic offence, and in each caste, the number of police officers convicted. [20033]
  434
  Mr. Maclean
  The information on complaints resulting in criminal proceedings, for England and Wales, excluding the Metropolitan police, is shown in the table. Information held centrally does not show the number of convictions resulting from complaints.

  Number of substantiated complaints by type of criminal proceedings

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Traffic offences

  5

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Other criminal offences

  15

  27

  8

  7

  21

  Total complaints resulting in proceedings

  20

  27

  12

  7

  123

  1Two complaints resulted in proceedings for both traffic and other criminal offences.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total number of police officers in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan police, against whom disciplinary charges were brought in each of the last six years for which figures are available showing(a) in the case of discipline charges arising out of a complaint from a member of the public (i) the number of officers charged and (ii) the number of officers against whom charges were proved, (b) in the case of discipline charges arising out of other circumstances (i) the number of officers charged, (ii) the number of officers against whom charges were proved and (c) the total of (a) and (b) (i) charged and (ii) proved.[20034]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table, with the exception of figures for the Metropolitan police, which were not collected centrally before 1993. Revised collection criteria introduced from 1993 also mean that figures for the number of disciplinary charges arising in circumstances other than from a compliant are no longer available centrally.

  Police officers charged—found guilty of disciplinary offences arising from a complaint or other circumstances—England and Wales excluding Metropolitan police.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Complaints

  Officers charged

  108

  84

  102

  121

  101

  121

  Officers found guilty

  63

  61

  75

  100

  70

  106

  Other Circumstances

  Officers charged

  358

  278

  258

  271

  269

  n/a

  Officers found guilty

  329

  265

  246

  264

  259

  1256

  Total charged

  466

  362

  360

  392

  370

  n/a

  Total found guilty

  392

  326

  321

  364

  329

  1362

  1The 1993 figure relates to officers receiving disciplinary punishments.

  Unemployment and Crime
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list research carried out since 1979 by his Department on any link between unemployment and crime. [20488]
  435
  Mr. Howard
  Since 1979, the following research studies bearing on any link between unemployment and crime have been carried out by my Department:Tarling, R. (1982). "Unemployment and Crime', Home Office Research Bulletin 14.
  (1983). "Unemployment, Crime and Sentencing: Some Time Series and Cross Sectional Studies for England and Wales', unpublished internal Home Office report.
  Field, S. (1990). "Trends in Crime and their Interpretation', Home Office research study No. 119.
  Orme, J. (1994). "A Study of the Relationship between Unemployment and Recorded Crime', Home Office Statistical Findings 1/94.

  Name of applicant

  Nature of allegations and inquiries

  Length of inquiries to date

  Total cost to date £

  Case 1: Avon and Somerset constabutary Barry Pitcher

  Disputed forensic and medical evidence. Inquiries included forensic tests and examination of court documents.

  84 weeks

  5,541.02

  Case 2: Lancashire constabulary Dave Berry and Barry Dewhurst

  Allegations were that other individuals had committed the offence. Inquiries included interviewing all the parties involved.

  31 hours

  570.04

  Case 3: Northumbria police Gary Turner

  Disputed prosecution evidence including identification evidence. Inquiries covered all the allegations made.

  10 days

  3,113.02

  Case 4: Devon and Cornwall constabulary Brian Parsons

  Prosecution case alleged to have involved fabrication of evidence; identification evidence also disputed. Inquiries covered all the matters raised.

  8 months

  122,386.28

  Case 5: West Midlands police Anthony Benton

  Allegations involved alleged new evidence. A full criminal investigation was carried out into all the allegations.

  86 weeks

  98,610

  Case 6: West Midlands police Derek Lee Abraha

  Allegations that other individuals committed the offence. Inquiries involved interviewing those involved and forensic tests.

  14 weeks

  18,072

  Case 7: Greater Manchester police All Fox

  Alleged new evidence and fabrication of evidence at trial. Inquiry incolved study of all relevant documents and re-interviewing all witnesses.

  67 weeks

  192,913

  It is not the responsibility of an investigating officer to make recommendations as to what action my right hon. and learned Friend should take on a case. In cases Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 my right hon. and learned Friend decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The remaining cases are still being considered, or are the subject of further inquiries.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into the costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice, and what conclusions were arrived at. [21036]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information about the present and possible future costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice is contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Criminal Appeal Bill. Information about the costs of police inquiries carried out in seven such cases was obtained in a recent survey whose results were reported in my reply to the hon. Member of 20 April,Official Report, column 271.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 271, (1) if he will list the four

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 271, if he will place in the Library full details of the responses to his Department's inquiries into miscarriages of justice, including the nature of the allegation, the nature of the inquiries undertaken, the recommendations made by the investigating officer and the decision made on each case by him. [21038]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is as follows:

  police forces from which replies are still awaited in respect of investigations of alleged miscarriages of justice; [21044]

  (2) if he will list the 11 police forces from which information in regard of miscarriages of justice was requested; and how many cases were raised with each force. [21035]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information was requested from the following forces:

  Number of cases

  Avon and Somerset constabulary

  1

  Lancashire constabulary

  1

  Northumbria police

  1

  Devon and Cornwall constabulary

  1

  West Midlands police

  2

  Greater Manchester police

  2

  Metropolitan police1

  3

  West Mercia constabulary1

  1

  Kent constabulary1

  2

  Thames Valley police1

  1

  West Yorkshire police1

  1

  1These forces were unable to provide the information requested. Greater Manchester police were able to provide the information in one of the two cases concerned.

  437
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into international comparisons of the costs of investigating miscarriages of justice. [21037]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Prison Service drugs strategy. [21217]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have today arranged for copies of the Prison Service drugs strategy to be placed in the Library.

  The Prison Service drugs strategy has been developed as part of the Government's strategy against the misuse of drugs, as set out in the Green Paper "Tackling Drugs Together'. The presence of drugs in prisons is unacceptable and leads to bullying, violence and intimidation, while undermining regimes. Dealing with this problem is, therefore, being given high priority by the service.

  Local drugs strategies will be developed which will have the objective of:
  reducing the supply of drugs
  reducing the demand for drugs
  rehabilitating drug misusers, and reducing the potential for damage to the health of prisoners, staff and the wider community, arising from the misuse of drugs.

  Mandatory drugs testing is an important part of the strategy. The first phase of implementation has already started in eight establishments—Lindholme, Wakefield, Feltham, Stoke Heath, Pentonville, Bristol, Holloway and Wayland. This phase will be carefully monitored and evaluated and the results will provide the basis for testing throughout the Prison Service. Prisoners who test positive will be liable to the usual range of disciplinary action on adjudication including additional days, loss of privileges and fines. Other measures to be taken will include imposition of closed visits and removal of home leave. Prisoners who test positive will be offered treatment for their drug misuse problem.

  A wide range of other measures is being taken to prevent drugs entering prisons. These include the increased use of drug dogs; more effective searching of prisoners, staff and visitors; the use of closed circuit television cameras during visits; and the imposition of closed visits for prisoners found guilty of drug offences in prison.

  The Prison Service is also committed to providing help to prisoners who misuse, have misused or are at risk of misusing drugs. A senior manager will be responsible for the through-care of drug misusers in each establishment, and will co-ordinate procedures for the identification, support and treatment of drug misusers whilst in custody. Preventive education programmes will be made available to all prisoners with the objective of informing prisoners about the dangers of drug misuse, instructing them in ways of minimising health risks, providing information about local treatment and support initiatives and who to contact if they require further help. A health care standard on the clinical management of drug misusers was issued to all establishments on 12 April 1995.
  438
  This year, the Prison Service will be expanding substantially the number and types of drug treatment programmes. These programmes include therapeutic communities; three-month treatment programmes; intensive counselling and education services; detoxification units; and community linked through-care programmes. Careful monitoring and evaluation of these programmes will help to determine the development of drug treatment in other establishments.

  The Prison Service is also committed to improving its working relationship with community drug agencies to ensure continuity of care for prisoners with drug misuse problems upon release from prisons.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of his officials' monitoring exercise on the impact of the national lottery on charities and charity lotteries. [20985]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government have undertaken to monitor changes in charitable income following the introduction of the national lottery. The most effective methods of doing this are currently under consideration.

  Port Talbot Bail Hostel
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions have recently been made as to the future and management of the bail hostel at Port Talbot; and if he will publish the report of the inspector who evaluated the role and functions of the hostel. [20351]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No decisions have yet been taken as a result of the recent review by HM inspectorate of probation. The inspectorate's report will be published in due course.

  Fixed Penalty Charges
  Mr. Sheerman
  To as the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines his Department gives to police forces regarding fixed penalty charges; [20005]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a standardised national charging system for fixed penalty charges; [20007]

  (3) what representations he has received regarding fixed penalty charges imposed by police forces in the last two years. [20006]

  Mr. Maclean
  The national levels of fixed penalties for road traffic offences are set by my right hon. and learned Friend under section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Chief officers of police have been advised that the national rates in England and Wales are £40 for offences involving obligatory endorsement and £20 for non-endorsable offences including illegal parking, with the exception of illegal parking in London. For London, which is defined as the Metropolitan police district and the City of London, the following differential rates were set in view of the particular problems of congestion:£40 for illegal parking on a red route;
  £30 for illegal parking elsewhere in London

  No representations have been received regarding the current levels of fixed penalty, which came into force on 1 April 1992.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post in(a) north Yorkshire and (b) England and Wales on 31 December 1974 and on the same date in 1979 and 1994. [20021]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  North Yorkshire

  England and Wales

  December 1974

  1,209

  100,774

  December 1979

  1,338

  111,754

  December 1994

  1,313

  125,293

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are available for(a) front-line, (b) support and front-line and (c) administrative duties; and what is the resident population in each police force in England and Wales. [20018]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data on deployment of police officers are not available in the form requested. The numbers of police officers deployed on operational policing and on support duties are set out in the table. Data on the population in each force area in England and Wales are in the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police strength— and support roles1(1993)

  Police strength (operations)

  Police strength (support)

  Avon and Somerset

  2,286

  738

  Bedfordshire

  838

  329

  Cambridgeshire

  940

  285

  Cheshire

  1,542

  331

  City of London

  564

  228

  Cleveland

  1,116

  298

  Cumbria

  968

  216

  Derbyshire

  1,408

  382

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,391

  514

  Dorset

  1,056

  236

  Durham

  1,028

  359

  Dyfed-Powys

  844

  122

  Essex

  2,256

  691

  Gloucestershire

  866

  274

  Greater Manchester

  4,971

  2,074

  Gwent

  819

  170

  Hampshire

  2,663

  607

  Hertfordshire

  1,356

  323

  Humberside

  1,522

  511

  Kent

  2,629

  524

  Lancashire

  2,343

  794

  Leicestershire

  1,365

  472

  Lincolnshire

  1,028

  176

  Merseyside

  3,494

  1,168

  Metropolitan Police

  19,932

  7,211

  Norfolk

  1,102

  332

  North Wales

  1,104

  237

  North Yorkshire

  1,034

  300

  Northamptonshire

  1,002

  179

  Northumbria

  2,742

  849

  Nottinghamshire

  1,900

  449

  South Wales

  2,628

  514

  South Yorkshire

  2,389

  626

  Staffordshire

  1,697

  502

  Suffolk

  976

  239

  Surrey

  1,451

  199

  Sussex

  2,285

  692

  Thames Valley

  2,827

  996

  Warwickshire

  761

  242

  440

  Police strength—operations and support roles1 (1993)

  Police strength (operations)

  Police strength (support)

  West Mercia

  1,578

  478

  West Midlands

  5,012

  1,932

  West Yorkshire

  3,641

  1,345

  Wiltshire

  929

  247

  1 The police strength figures do not include supernumerary officers, officers on secondment—for example, regional crime squads—or officers working overseas. The figures are full-time equivalents.

  Fire Service Pensions Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest progress made by his Department's review body of the fire service pensions review; and if he will make a statement. [20050]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The review group is producing a consultation paper suggesting new arrangements for the fire service pensions scheme. The consultation document will be circulated as soon as possible.

  Police Diving Teams
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the information his Department holds on the performance and expenditure by police authorities on police diving teams. [19933]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Data Protection Directive
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning progress towards agreement on the European Union's data protection directive; if he will indicate those areas where the United Kingdom Government still have major concerns; what plans he has to oppose implementation of the data protection directive; and if he will make a statement. [20038]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Council adopted a common position on the directive on 20 February. The United Kingdom abstained. The directive is currently before the European Parliament, where it has been referred to the Legal Affairs and Citizens Rights Committee. The Government hope that the directive will be further improved in its application to manual records, political canvassing, and financial and other commercial regulation, and by the removal of the requirement for prior checking of certain categories of processing operation. The Government's position is described in a briefing paper on the directive which has been sent to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. I am placing a copy of this paper in the Library.

  Decisions on how the directive should be implemented in national law will be taken when its final form is known.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by his Department's scientific research and development branch into the exposure of firefighters to diesel exhaust emissions from fire appliances in fire stations. [20046]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No research has been undertaken by the Home Office on this topic.
  441
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been promulgated by his Department to local fire authorities and brigades on post-traumatic stress disorder among fire service personnel. [20054]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received no requests for such guidance, but it is for individual fire authorities to decide what arrangements—for example, for the provision of professional counselling—might be appropriate in particular circumstances.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been promulgated by his Department to local fire authorities and brigades on the wearing and use of extended duration breathing apparatus by firefighters. [20052]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Technical and procedural advice to the fire service on the use of breathing apparatus in the course of duty is contained in "Technical Bulletin', 1/1989, and in book 6, "Breathing Apparatus and Resuscitation', of the "Manual of Firemanship'. The guidance is subject to monitoring and review.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by his department's scientific research and development branch into the effects of radiation on firefighters. [20049]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No research has been undertaken by the Home Office on this matter. Comprehensive operational and procedural guidance on the role of the fire service at incidents involving radioactivity is contained in "Technical Bulletin', 2/1993, "Incidents Involving Radioactive Materials', which is published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 341034 4.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) what factors his Department is considering using in the funding formula for police authorities to reflect the additional costs of policing rural counties; [20019]

  (2) when his Department intends to introduce changes to the funding formula for police authorities to reflect the additional costs of policing rural counties. [20020]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the allocation formula working group to advise him whether the police funding formula in England and Wales takes adequate account of any extra police costs in both densely and sparsely populated areas. The group is following a unit costing approach, and will have access to the expertise of external consultants. If there is a sound statistical basis for changes to the formula, we will introduce these as soon as we can.

  London Fire Brigade
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the London fire and civil defence authority has to equip fire rescue unit appliances in the London fire brigade with geiger counter equipment. [20051]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am informed by the chief fire officer that fire rescue units, of which there are six strategically located across London, are currently equipped with radiation detection devices based on the geiger principle.
  442
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by the London fire and civil defence authority to implement the recommendations of the Hidden inquiry report into the 1988 Clapham rail disaster as regards the London fire brigade. [20047]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am informed by chief fire officer that eight of the 93 recommendations resulting from the investigation into the Clapham Junction railway accident conducted by Mr. Anthony Hidden QC had implications for the London fire and civil defence authority and that all these recommendations have been met.

  Fire Research
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by his Department's scientific research and development branch on flashover and backdraught. [20053]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In 1992, the Home Office fire research and development group commissioned the fire research station to undertake a study into what was known about flashovers and backdraughts. This was completed in 1994 and issued as FRDG publication No. 5/94. Following this research, a supplement to the manual of firemanship entitled "The Behaviour of Fire—Compartment Fires' was published in February 1995. Further research is being undertaken by the fire experimental unit of the FRDG into the feasibility of producing a small-scale compartment fire simulator for use as a training tool for firefighters.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by the fire research station into flashover and backdraught. [20048]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The fire research station, part of the Building Research Establishment of DOE, has studied, over many years, the transition of small fires, through flashover, to fully developed conditions. The work has included experimental fires in compartments, the development of mathematical models to describe smoke and fire spread and studies of real fires. Results of the work have been used in the development of regulations and supporting codes and standards.

  FRS has recently completed a review for the Home Office to define the technical conditions of "backdraught" where the rapid ignition of partially burnt combustion products may place the lives of firefighters at risk when a compartment is ventilated.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with coroners courts conducting inquests on prison suicides about measures to reduce such suicides. [19951]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have drawn the attention of coroners to Prison Service guidance on a range of matters, including measures aimed at reducing the number of prison suicides. The issues were also discussed at a seminar for coroners on deaths in custody.

  Deceased Persons (Severed Hands)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the
  443
  documents relating to the procedures authorising the severance of hands from deceased persons in mortuaries, or elsewhere, extant in August 1989, stating the purposes for which such action was authorised, the criteria used for assessing its necessity, compared to procedures in situ, and the rank of those making decisions in respect of any individual case. [19775]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: I am not aware of the existence of any written procedures, extant in 1989, governing the removal of hands of deceased persons for identification purposes.

  Hospital Crime
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed in national health service hospitals in each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figures by type of crime. [20628]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Extradition
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give an assurance that persons wanted for questioning in connection with murders in the United Kingdom continue to be the subject of arrangements for extradition for the Irish Republic; [20013]
  444
  (2) if he will give an assurance that persons wanted for questioning in connection with murders in the United Kingdom continue to be the subject of arrangements for extradition from the Irish Republic. [20012]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland takes place under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the corresponding legislation of the Republic of Ireland. As with all extradition arrangements, the legislation makes no provision for extradition solely for the purposes of questioning, but makes provisions for the extradition of those who are either unlawfully at large having been convicted of a crime, or for whom an arrest warrant has been issued so that they may stand trial. It remains Her Majesty's Government's policy, wherever possible, to seek the return of those who have escaped from justice.

  Tokyo Subway Chemical Agent
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for increased numbers of experiments at Porton Down on antidotes to chemical warfare agents following the Tokyo subway attack; and what plans he has to use animals in such experiments. [19725]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  We currently have no plans to increase experiments on the agent reportedly used in the attack on the Tokyo subway.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claimants' Mail
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlay the contracting out of the opening by non-DSS staff of mail form claimants; and if he will make a statement. [19128]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the acting chief executive of the Benefits Agency, and he will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. David Marshall, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the opening of Departmental post by private sector companies.
  The "Competing for Quality" White Paper set out the Government's policy for extending choice and competition in the public sector in order to secure better services and better value for money. Market testing is one of the ways in which the Government aims to extend competition and achieve more effective, more accountable and more business-like management in the public sector. This does not mean that work is automatically contracted out to the private sector. Main elements of the market testing process are to review the existing in house service, to establish precisely the standard of service that the customer requires, and to encourage and support the existing staff in seeking ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their work. The work will only be awarded to an external contractor if the existing staff cannot provide the required service at best value for money for the taxpayer.
  As part of this initiative the Benefits Agency has market tested a number of accommodation and office services including typing, security guarding, messengers and post opening operations. The work was grouped in geographical packages before being market tested. The outcome of the tests has been a mixture of wins by in-house and external suppliers. Some of the successful in-house bids were made in partnership with the Royal Mail and in the Tyne/Tees, North and West Yorkshire, Scotland, East Midlands, Wales, Greater Manchester and South East areas the Royal Mail now open and sort post under contract to the Benefits Agency.
  All mail is opened under careful supervision in a separate, secure area which is locked at all times and only staff directly involved in the contract will be allowed access to this area. Whilst the post is being opened and sorted no one is allowed to enter or leave the room. Any mail marked "Private', "Personal" or "Confidential" is left unopened. The sorted mail is then placed in sealed bags and delivered to the Agency's District Offices each morning.
  Benefits Agency contracts with external suppliers contain all the safeguards that are normally applied to Civil Servants including the requirement to sign a declaration acknowledging the provisions of Section 123 of the Social Security Act 1992 which makes it a criminal offence to disclose personal information needed to establish benefit entitlement.
  This is a highly complex operation run by well-trained staff, who previously had to be removed from benefit work to attend post opening. This method of operation cost the Benefits Agency a considerable amount of staff time and money and the new arrangements free staff to deal with benefit work. Typically the revised operation frees the equivalent of 2 extra staff in an average office, and also guarantees that the mail is ready to be dealt with by staff, on average, 11 hours earlier than had previously been the case. This presents a real opportunity for enhanced customer service. Savings, in simple cost terms, have also been achieved for the tax payer.
  The Benefits Agency has ensured that in seeking to provide better value for money in the delivery of public services the highest standards of quality and confidentiality will be maintained.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial injuries benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema were made in Nottinghamshire up to 31 March; and how many were successful. [19882]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the acting chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of claims for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit made in respect of chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema in Nottinghamshire up to 31 March 1995.
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. Statistics are maintained by Benefits Agency Branch Offices and Districts whose boundaries do not corresponded exactly with those of counties. However, figures are quoted in the attached appendix for the three main benefit offices in the area; North, East and West Nottinghamshire. It is possible that these figures will include some people living outside Nottinghamshire.
  I am afraid that, whilst collating the present data, it was discovered that the figures supplied in the reply to your previous Parliamentary Question (Hansard Reference: Vol 245 Col 186/187) were incorrect and I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. The corrected figures are also shown in the attached appendix.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for prescribed disease D12—chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema—in the Nottinghamshire area as at 12 June 1994 (corrected data)

  Claims being proceeded with

  3,453

  Successful claims

  295

  Disallowed on prescription

  62

  Regulation 22 cases1

  11

  Assessed at 1–132

  1

  Not diagnosed

  2,478

  1 Where an applicant is already receiving Disablement Benefit in respect of PD D1 (pneumoconiosis) and has been assessed at over 50 per cent. disablement with chronic bronchitis and emphysema as a contributory factor.

  2 Benefit is not payable for assessments under 14 per cent.

  Claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for Prescribed Disease D12—Chronic Bronchitis and/or Emphysema—in the Nottinghamshire area as at 31 March 1995

  Claims received

  3,893

  Successful claims (assessed at 14–100 per cent.)

  474

  Note:

  Not all claims received within the period will have been decided by 31 March 1995.

  Benefits Agency Business Plan
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total production and distribution cost of the Benefits Agency 1995–96 business plan; how many copies were produced; and to whom they were distributed. [20254]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The production, distribution and associated costs of the Benefits Agency 1995–96 business plan is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the acting chief
  447
  executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Ms Dawn Primarolo, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the production and distribution costs of the Benefits Agency (BA) 1995–96 Business Plan.
  The design, printing and distribution costs of the Business Plan totalled £14,775 for the production of 15,000 copies.
  The Business Plan is distributed to Ministers, the Permanent Secretary, Opposition Spokespersons, Members of Parliament, the Social Security Advisory Committee, National Audit Office and Her Majesty's Treasury. It is also distributed externally to Local Authority Housing Benefits Departments and to BA Customer Organisations. There is also an internal distribution to managers in the Department of Social Security and the BA.
  Copies of the Business Plan are available in the House of Commons Library and can be freely obtained from the Agency by members of the public upon request.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on implementing the fallow period when the delay for late payment of attendance allowance is due to administrative error. [16159]

  Mr. Hague
  Under the DSS special payments arrangements, compensation may be considered where payment of benefit has been delayed unduly as a result of clear official error.

  The fallow period is the period which must elapse before consideration can be given to the payment of compensation. The fallow period until 1993 was one year for all benefits, including attendance allowance.

  The fallow period for AA and disability living allowance was reduced to eight months from 1 April 1995.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [19651]

  Mr. Hague
  Available information is in the table. Further information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing benefit recipients for each local authority in Northamptonshire—1998to1994

  Local authority name

  November 1988

  November 1989

  November 1990

  November 1991

  November 1992

  November 1993

  November 1994

  Corby

  3,700

  3,600

  3,900

  4,600

  4,900

  5,100

  5,200

  Daventry

  2,300

  2,200

  2,400

  2,600

  2,800

  3,000

  2,800

  East Northampton

  2,600

  2,600

  2,800

  2,900

  3,300

  3,500

  3,600

  Kettering

  3,600

  3,600

  3,700

  4,200

  4,400

  4,500

  4,700

  Northampton

  9,900

  10,100

  11,000

  11,700

  12,400

  13,400

  13,800

  South Northants

  2,200

  2,400

  2,300

  2,500

  2,600

  2,600

  2,700

  Wellingborough

  3,900

  3,900

  3,900

  4,400

  4,700

  4,800

  4,900

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System. 100 per cent. quarterly case load stock count inquiries, taken at the end of November in each year given.
  448

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  DSS Headquarters

  4,870

  329

  341

  Benefits Agency

  1,565

  2,676

  1,828

  Contributions Agency

  281

  324

  279

  Information Technology Services Agency

  797

  779

  885

  Child Support Agency

  243

  834

  437

  Resettlement Agency

  nil

  nil

  nil

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  20

  Total

  17,755

  4,942

  13,802

  1 Total difference due to rounding.

  The information to reply to parts (b) and (c) is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the rate of child benefit at April 1995 if it were uprated from its value on introduction in 1975(a) in line with the retail prices index and (b) in line with average earnings. [19699]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. Child benefit was not introduced until 5 April 1977.Value for child benefit at April 1995, uprating its rate on introduction on 5 April 1977 (a) in line with retail prices index and (b) in line with average earnings.

  Rate payable from 5 April 1997£

  Uprated in line with retail prices index1 £

  Uprated in line with average earnings2 £

  First child

  1.00

  3.25

  5.00

  Second and subsequent children

  1.50

  4.70

  7.00

  1Using the General Index of Retail Prices (All Items).

  2Using the Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy) Unadjusted.

  Benefits, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of applications for housing benefit and the proportion allowed for each local authority in Northamptonshire for each year since 1987–88. [20264]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available. However, information from 1988 relating to case loads is set out in the table.
  449
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the most recently available figure for each security benefit, including pensions, paid by or on behalf of this Departments in Northamptonshire. [20276]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested. Social security expenditure for Great Britain is shown in the 1995 departmental report, Cm 2813, published in March 1995.

  War Widows Pensions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensions are currently being paid to war widows; and how many of these relate to service up to 30 September 1921. [20265]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As at 31 March 1995 the number of war widows pensions in payment was 48,405; of those, 1,643 have been awarded in respect of death due to service up to 30 September 1921.

  Housing Benefit Central Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to the current pilot scheme involving the cross-matching of council tax and housing benefits data, obtained from London local authorities, with data held by his Department, if he will indicate the anticipated saving arising from the exercise; what estimate he has made of the number of records to be matched, anticipated mismatches and withdrawn applications for benefits; and if he will make a statement. [20058]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 1 December 1994, Official Report, column 883. A full evaluation of the housing benefit central register pilot has taken place and is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to his intention to cross-match council tax and housing benefits personal data with personal data held by his Department, whether he has issued advice to London boroughs concerning the need to protect claimants from false accusations based in inaccurate data; and if he will make a statement. [20059]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 28 November 1994,Official Report, column 521.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20177]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20178]

  Mr. Hague
  The Department is required to publish a report to Parliament accounting for the stewardship of 450
  public funds and spending plans. This is also an opportunity, within the spirit of open government, to make available to the public information about the Department's work and activities. There is a common core of information that all Departments must include to present a consistent picture of public spending across all programmes. Above that, the Department has relative freedom to determine the style and content of the report.

  The Department controls costs by allocating budgets for items of expenditure to managers rather than costing specific processes, such as preparation of reports. In preparing the departmental report the Department strives to produce a clear and comprehensive document which represents good value for money.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the Data Protection Registrar an undertaking that the national insurance number will not be used for purposes unconnected with the tax and benefits system; and if he will make a statement. [20057]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Data Protection Registrar has been advised that it is departmental policy to restrict the use of the national insurance number of national insurance, tax and social security benefit related purposes.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he next intends to meet with representatives of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association to discuss the entry on ME in the disability living allowance handbook; [20556]

  (2) what representations he has received on the accuracy of the entry in the disability living allowance handbook on ME in relation to the stance of the national task force on CFS/PVFS/ME; and if he will make a statement. [20555]

  Mr. Hague
  A small number of representations have been received concerning the revised entry on CFS/ME in the disability handbook. A full reply has been sent to the ME Association, extending an invitation for a meeting with departmental officials to discuss the association's concerns further.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether this in each case is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20504]

  Mr. Hague
  The Occupational Pensions Board is the only executive non-departmental public body sponsored by this Department. No such information is published.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which
  451
  are subject to (a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20664]

  Mr. Hague
  The only non-departmental public body that fits these criteria is the Occupational Pensions Board, which is:(a) not currently subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, although arrangements to bring the OPB within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner, by means of an Order in Council, are well advanced;
  (b) not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission;
  (c) subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, under the National Audit Act 1983;
  (d) not currently subject to the statutory provisions for open government, which apply only to those bodies within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;

  Benefit/allowance

  Current rate

  Rate if uprated by April 1995 uprating only £

  Estimated rate if uprated by April 1995 and projected 1996 uprating £

  Christmas bonus

  10.00

  10.20

  10.50

  Income support—amounts for meals where these cannot be obtained within the accommodation (daily rates):

  Breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  1.10

  Midday/evening meal

  1.55

  1.60

  1.65

  Maternity allowance—higher rate (weekly)

  52.50

  53.65

  55.25

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases scheme—death benefit

  300.00

  306.60

  315.80

  Retirement pension—age 80 addition (weekly)

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  Widows payment

  1,000

  1,022

  1,052.66

  Notes:

  1. Amounts are rounded to the nearest 5p.

  2. Uprated amounts for 1995 are based upon the movement in retail prices Index in the year up to September 1994. The all items index has been applied for benefits other than income related benefits; to which the Rossi index—all items except housing—has been applied.

  3. Estimated rates for 1996 are based upon the assumptions for planning public expenditure in the Treasury's annual financial and budget report 1995–96.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether this in each case is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20501]

  Mr. Dorrell
  All of my Department's NDPBs are required, under their founding statute, charter, or other instrument of corporation, to publish reports, although not necessarily on an annual basis, and to publish annual accounts. None of my Department's executive NDPBs is required to publish minutes or agendas of meetings, although some may issue public statements about
  452
  (e) not subject to published performance indicators;
  (f) committed to the principles of the citizens charter, which apply to all public services.

  The board and its members are not public servants, although the administrative staff in the executive office are. In line with the principles of the citizens charter, the OPB published its charter standard statement and code of practice in July 1994, setting out the standards of service the public can expect and telling customers what they can do to obtain help and advice from the OPB. In addition, this publication also incorporates the OPB's enforcers code, published as part of the "Working with Business—a Code for Enforcement Agencies' initiative.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be(a) the current value and (b) the estimated value for next year of those benefits which have never been uprated since they were (i) introduced and (ii) announced, if they were now uprated. [20261]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  decisions taken at meetings. Such arrangements are voluntary. My Department has asked each of its executive NDPBs to adopt a code of practice for board members. This recommends that boards should consider establishing a register of members' interests which should be open for public inspection and published at least once a year. A number of bodies are currently considering how to implement the code. There are no statutory requirements to compile and publish a register of members' interests.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what organisations will be represented on the panel which will assess the bids to carry out work on children's play. [20989]

  Mr. Sproat
  Assessment of any bids to do work on children's play will be made by my Department in consultation with the Sports Council.
  453
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funding he is making available to the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play in 1995–96. [20827]

  Mr. Sproat
  For the period April to September 1995, the National Children's Bureau is receiving a grant of £13,500 from the Sports Council Trust Company for the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

  Interested organisations will shortly be invited by my Department to bid for funds to carry out work in certain specified areas of children's play from October 1995. Future funding of the NVCCP will depend upon the outcome of that process.

  Sports Bodies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what local authorities representation there is on(a) the new United Kingdom Sports Commission and (b) the new English Sports Council. [20997]

  Mr. Sproat
  Local authorities are not directly represented on either body. Ministerial nominees, to be appointed in each of the regions of the English Sports Council, will bring a further range of experience and expertise to the council's work, including that of local government.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of(a) the new United Kingdom Sports Commission and (b) the new English Sports Council are females. [20995]

  Mr. Sproat
  The United Kingdom Sports Council will have 10 members, one of whom is female. The Sports Council for England will have 15 members, one of whom is female.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of removing responsibility for transmission from the BBC. [20004]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am currently considering the options for the future ownership of the BBC's transmission service.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the number of people in the United Kingdom who can pick up satellite television but who are unable to receive terrestrial television. [20003]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reassess the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 with regard to the protection of universal television coverage of sporting events in the United Kingdom in respect of News Corporation's bid for the rights to television coverage of rugby football league. [20247]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. With the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Government decided that it was right to liberalise the market for the benefit of rights holders, who should not without good reason find themselves prohibited from disposing of their rights in the way they choose. This remains the Government's position.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20186]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Consistent with its obligation to publish an annual report, my Department takes all necessary measures to keep the cost and staff implications of compiling material to a minimum.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1992. [20185]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Staff time and the estimated cost of officials who were directly involved in producing my Department's annual reports in the years since it was established are as follows:

  Total staff years

  Cost (£"000)

  1993

  0.21

  18.9

  1994

  0.26

  20.9

  1995

  0.27

  19.0

  Other staff throughout the Department also participate in providing material for the report, as part of their normal duties.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the National Heritage if he will list the number and location of Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Royal Parks Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [19968]

  Mr. Sproat
  Neither the Historic Royal Palaces Agency nor the Royal Parks Agency has ever had any offices or jobs located in Scotland.

  Monuments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the amendments made to the schedule of monuments under the ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, as amended, in each of the past 10 years, by name and location and with the reason for revision of the scheduled area of each monument.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: In the mid-1980s there were roughly 12,500 entries in the schedule, representing some 18,000 individual sites. By the end of February 1995, there were 15,346 entries, representing some 22,000 individual sites. The number of amendments to the schedule per year since 1989 is shown in the table. Amendments agreed by the Secretary of State comprise the addition of new monuments, revisions of existing schedule entries, and the deletion of monuments

  455
  from the schedule. Figures for 1985 to 1989, and the name, location and reason for each amendment since

  Recommendations by English Heritage

  Number of scheduling decisions by the Secretary of State

  Number of decisions involving revisions of areas

  Increase in number of monuments in the schedule

  1989–90

  304

  310

  52

  132

  1990–91

  403

  328

  136

  189

  1991–92

  1,138

  900

  295

  534

  1992–93

  1,020

  1,280

  446

  655

  1993–94

  1,240

  1,203

  507

  598

  1994–95

  (to end of February 1995)

  1,672

  1,626

  688

  884

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. [19850]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 April 1995]: My Department was established in April 1992. Neither my Department nor its agencies has purchased any mahogany or products containing it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what further action has been taken against firms for non-compliance with orders of enforcement from the Fair Employment Tribunal since the introduction of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989; [19852]

  (2) how many breaches of its orders of enforcement have been certified by the Fair Employment Tribunal to the High Court; and of these how many were subject to fines or committal penalties for contempt of that court; [19855]

  (3) what cash penalties were imposed by the Fair Employment Tribunal for breaches of its orders of enforcement; and what firms were subject to such fines since the inception of the Fair Employment Tribunal. [19851]

  Mr. Ancram
  No orders of enforcement have been issued by the Fair Employment Tribunal since the introduction of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what firms or employers have been debarred from tendering for contracts as a result of non-compliance with orders of enforcement from the Fair Employment Tribunal since the introduction of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [19853]

  Mr. Ancram
  Since the introduction of the Fair Employment Act 1989 no firms have been debarred from tendering for contracts as a result of non-compliance with an order of enforcement from the Fair Employment Tribunal.
  456
  1989, cannot be provided in view of the disproportionate cost involved.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated number of people aged over 17 years with glaucoma in Northern Ireland. [19732]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the Northern Ireland Citizens Advice Bureaux concerning the number of people dependent on income support; and what action the Government will take to reduce poverty levels in Northern Ireland. [19854]

  Mr. Moss
  I am not aware of any recent representations from the Northern Ireland Citizens Advice Bureaux concerning the number of people dependent on income support.

  The Government continue to give priority to targeting resources on areas and people in greatest need. Social security in Northern Ireland maintains parity with the rest of the United Kingdom and income-related benefits such as income support provide assistance to the least well-off.

  Pollution Repairs
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the total repair budget of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is used in repairs to roads, buildings, etcetera which have sustained damage as the result of environmental pollution. [19870]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has not identified any damage to roads, buildings, etcetera, specifically caused by environmental pollution which has required repair expenditure. It is estimated, however, that approximately 4 per cent. of the roads services total bridge maintenance budget of £5 million for 1993–94 was spent on repairing damage caused by chloride attack.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the causes of chloride attack on bridges and other structures in Northern Ireland; and what proportion of the £3.2 million spent on repairs to bridges and other structures during 1993–94 was needed to repair damage from chloride attack. [19869]

  Mr. Moss
  The main cause of chloride attack on bridges is rock salt which is used for winter gritting.
  457
  While no exact figures are available to show the costs incurred in repairing damage caused specifically by chloride attack, it is estimated that this accounts for approximately 4 per cent. of the total bridge maintenance budget which, in the 1993–94 financial year, stood at £5 million.

  No expenditure has been incurred on repairs to other structures.

  Sport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Sports Council of Northern Ireland has to increase sporting contacts with(a) Scotland and (b) the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement about the present policy of the Sports Council towards promotion of co-operation within the United Kingdom. [19756]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has no proposals to increase sporting contacts with Scotland or the Republic of Ireland, as arrangements already in place are felt to be appropriate and adequate.

  The policy of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is to promote co-operation within the United Kingdom, both in general and in relation to specific issues. Accordingly, the chairman and chief executive attend the meetings of the Great Britain Sports Council, and bilateral contacts with individual home country sports councils are pursued as appropriate on specific issues.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the small businesses created with the assistance of the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland since 1989 are currently still trading. [19863]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the period between December 1989 and December 1993, LEDU assisted the creation of 3,302 new firms. At December 1993, 2,909 of these companies were still in existence. Information on LEDU's performance during 1994–95 is not yet available and will be published at the end of May.

  Surplus Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, by county, the amount of surplus milk thrown away in each month since January 1992. [19822]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not available.

SCOTLAND

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many inspectors his Department employs to visit meat wholesalers; how many visits each inspector makes; and how many visits each supplier expects in a year; [19491]

  (2) what investigations his Department's inspectors carry out on the accuracy of date labelling by wholesale meat suppliers to supermarkets; [19492]
  458
  (3) if he will list the number and types of incidents in meat wholesalers detected by his Department's inspectors for the last year for which figures are available; [19493]

  (4) if meat wholesalers are notified in advance of visits by his Department's meat inspectors. [19522]

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Official Report, columns 378–79.

  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of swine vesicular disease were reported in each year since 1985. [19729]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of swine vesicular disease have been recorded in Scotland since 1985.

  Road Side Advertising
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the planning law on road side advertising; and if he will make a statement. [19749]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to alter the planning law on road side advertising. However, the Scottish Office Environment Department is currently reviewing the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, with a view to amending and updating this legislation. A public consultation document on this subject will issue later this year.

  Separately, the roads directorate of the Scottish Office Industry Department has, in conjunction with the Scottish tourist board, been reviewing the provision of tourist signposting in Scotland, and has now issued a consultation document, proposing changes to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. The results of this consultation will be known during the summer.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of child prostitution have been reported during the last year; and what are the figures for each of the previous four years. [20705]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Surplus Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by region, the amount of surplus milk thrown away in each month since January 1992. [19821]

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not available.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines, information or instructions were issued by his Department to assessors in respect of the most recent rating revaluation of business properties in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [20596]

  Mr. Lang
  New primary and secondary legislation was drawn to assessors' attention by means of departmental circulars. In carrying out their statutory responsibilities, assessors are not subject to policy direction by my Department.

  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure was incurred by his Department in funding the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and what is the estimated expenditure on the scheme for the current year. [20591]

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

  Year

  Expenditure £000

  1991–92

  245

  1992–93

  253

  1993–94

  259

  1994–95

  266

  The expenditure in the current financial year will depend on the outcome of negotiations which are in progress with the British Veterinary Association.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when officials of his Department last met representatives of the British Veterinary Association to discuss future arrangements for the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme. 120592]

  Mr. Lang
  Officials last met BVA representatives on 19 April. Discussions were very positive and I hope that we will be able to introduce revised arrangements in the near future.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in respect of each islands and district council area in Scotland, the total net rateable value of non-domestic property(a) prior to and (b) since 1 April. [20593]

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the rateable value of non-domestic property, in respect of each islands and district council area in Scotland, at 1 April 1994, which is the latest date for which the information is available, is given in table 1. Information is not, at present, available centrally on the rateable value of non-domestic property at 1 April 1995. Table 2 gives estimates of the average percentage increase in rateable value in each region and islands area following the 1995 revaluation of non-domestic rates. The estimates are based on a sample survey of estimated outcomes of revaluation which was conducted last year.

  Table 1: Non-domestic rateable values, April 1994

  £ millions

  Berwickshire

  6.25

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  15.35

  Roxburgh

  11.85

  Tweeddale

  5.02

  Clackmannan

  21.98

  Falkirk

  89.24

  Stirling

  46.62

  Annandale and Eskdale

  16.18

  Nithsdale

  27.73

  Stewartry

  8.87

  Wigtown

  9.75

  Dunfermline

  92.86

  Kirkcaldy

  83.06

  North East Fife

  28.28

  460

  Table 1: Non-domestic rateable values, April 1994

  £ millions

  Aberdeen

  186.65

  Banff and Buchan

  51.76

  Gordon

  23.30

  Kincardine and Deeside

  20.19

  Moray

  40.63

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  7.40

  Caithness

  10.80

  Inverness

  47.91

  Lochaber

  12.30

  Nairn

  3.08

  Ross and Cromarty

  22.13

  Skye and Lochalsh

  4.26

  Sutherland

  4.50

  East Lothian

  52.20

  Edinburgh

  341.86

  Midlothian

  24.89

  West Lothian

  66.26

  Argyll and Bute

  31.67

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  10.22

  Clydebank

  21.94

  Clydesdale

  20.24

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  25.28

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  12.52

  Cunninghame

  70.55

  Dumbarton

  36.24

  East Kilbride

  41.84

  Eastwood

  13.55

  Glasgow

  469.80

  Hamilton

  38.74

  Inverclyde

  34.72

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  29.75

  Kyle and Carrick

  52.95

  Monklands

  36.93

  Motherwell

  56.99

  Refrew

  94.64

  Strathkelvin

  23.42

  Angus

  36.09

  Dundee

  93.60

  Perth and Kinross

  66.36

  Orkney

  2.31

  Shetland

  42.47

  Western Isles

  10.05

  Total Scotland

  2,756.02

  Source:

  Non-domestic rateable values return: April 1994.

  Table 2: Average percentage increase in rateable value following revaluation

  Borders

  23.2

  Central

  17.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16.2

  Fife

  16.0

  Grampian

  30.5

  Highland

  17.4

  Lothian

  29.6

  Strathclyde

  27.5

  Tayside

  19.2

  Orkney

  7.2

  Shetland

  1.7

  Western Isles

  17.9

  Source:

  Sample survey of revaluation factors from the 1995 revaluation.

  Note:

  Estimates for Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles are based on small samples and should be treated with caution.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in respect of each islands and district council area in Scotland, the total revenue raised
  461
  by non-domestic rates in each year since 1990–91 in (a) actual prices and (b) 1995 prices. [20594]

  Mr. Lang
  The information is given in the tables.

  Net income from non-domestic rates £millon current prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Berwickshire

  1.96

  2.16

  2.18

  2.13

  2.27

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5.13

  5.53

  5.51

  5.35

  5.50

  Roxburgh

  4.09

  4.37

  4.29

  4.20

  4.33

  Tweeddale

  1.71

  1.84

  1.87

  1.77

  1.82

  Clackmannan

  9.13

  9.97

  9.74

  8.84

  9.37

  Falkirk

  35.72

  39.63

  38.14

  37.18

  38.18

  Stirling

  20.24

  22.89

  21.59

  19.99

  19.80

  Annandale and Eskdale

  5.37

  5.89

  6.14

  6.18

  6.44

  Nithsdale

  10.29

  10.87

  10.79

  10.30

  10.95

  Stewartry

  2.84

  3.08

  3.07

  2.99

  3.47

  Wigtown

  3.58

  3.77

  3.76

  3.59

  3.78

  Dunfermline

  41.45

  44.01

  43.09

  41.62

  40.49

  Kirkcaldy

  37.28

  38.80

  37.44

  35.31

  33.94

  North East Fife

  11.79

  12.27

  11.80

  10.89

  10.29

  Aberdeen

  68.57

  70.51

  70.87

  68.66

  69.92

  Banff and Buchan

  17.52

  18.64

  18.84

  19.50

  19.99

  Gordon

  7.29

  7.78

  8.20

  8.48

  8.77

  Kincardine and Deeside

  6.20

  6.60

  6.77

  7.08

  7.50

  Moray

  14.90

  14.92

  14.93

  14.80

  15.46

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2.34

  2.53

  2.59

  2.68

  2.72

  Caithness

  4.13

  4.44

  4.36

  3.96

  3.98

  Inverness

  18.74

  19.77

  19.37

  18.28

  18.88

  Lochaber

  4.80

  5.27

  5.29

  5.25

  5.28

  Nairn

  1.11

  1.20

  1.18

  1.05

  1.06

  Ross and Cromarty

  9.22

  9.82

  9.24

  8.54

  8.65

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.52

  1.69

  1.71

  1.62

  1.60

  Sutherland

  1.49

  1.64

  1.65

  1.64

  1.67

  East Lothian

  21.63

  22.92

  22.70

  21.61

  23.44

  Edinburgh

  154.73

  165.33

  156.67

  143.33

  137.29

  Midlothian

  10.67

  11.16

  11.45

  10.56

  9.98

  West Lothian

  26.98

  29.21

  28.68

  27.42

  27.89

  Argyll and Bute

  14.66

  15.15

  14.31

  12.54

  12.22

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  4.35

  4.55

  4.44

  4.18

  4.08

  Clydebank

  11.00

  10.83

  10.43

  9.39

  9.77

  Clydesdale

  8.62

  9.79

  10.00

  8.84

  9.06

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  11.56

  12.34

  11.76

  11.02

  11.26

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4.43

  4.89

  4.91

  4.31

  4.90

  Cunninghame

  33.87

  35.02

  33.62

  31.88

  30.71

  Dumbarton

  17.42

  18.14

  17.87

  16.76

  16.27

  East Kilbride

  18.57

  19.72

  19.30

  18.96

  18.64

  Eastwood

  5.50

  5.86

  5.79

  5.56

  5.62

  Glasgow

  231.30

  243.70

  229.35

  209.59

  203.19

  Hamilton

  18.13

  19.08

  18.52

  17.36

  17.16

  Inverclyde

  14.86

  15.91

  15.55

  13.71

  14.17

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  13.77

  14.29

  13.77

  12.67

  12.98

  Kyle and Carrick

  24.26

  25.71

  25.05

  23.15

  23.00

  Monklands

  16.94

  17.87

  17.12

  16.55

  16.25

  Motherwell

  28.67

  28.78

  26.85

  25.50

  25.37

  462

  Net income from non-domestic rates £million current prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Refrew

  42.12

  44.50

  44.18

  41.76

  41.86

  Strathkelvin

  10.32

  11.00

  10.87

  10.76

  10.51

  Angus

  14.47

  14.98

  15.00

  13.45

  13.20

  Dundee

  40.17

  42.11

  39.67

  34.25

  33.45

  Perth and Kinross

  25.65

  28.10

  27.88

  25.61

  24.23

  Orkney

  6.39

  6.38

  5.42

  5.66

  5.85

  Shetland

  20.05

  19.69

  15.93

  16.51

  16.85

  Western Isles

  4.10

  4.56

  4.52

  3.93

  3.80

  Total Scotland

  1,203.60

  1,271.48

  1,225.99

  1,148.71

  1,139.07

  Notes:

  Source, non-domestic rate income returns—September 1994.

  Figures for districts within Lothian include estimates.

  Net income from non-domestic rates £million 1995–96 prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Berwickshire

  2.36

  2.44

  2.37

  2.24

  2.34

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  6.16

  6.25

  5.98

  5.63

  5.68

  Roxburgh

  4.91

  4.93

  4.66

  4.43

  4.47

  Tweeddale

  2.06

  2.08

  2.03

  1.86

  1.88

  Clackmannan

  10.95

  11.25

  10.58

  9.31

  9.67

  Falkirk

  42.84

  44.73

  41.40

  39.16

  39.42

  Stirling

  24.28

  25.84

  23.43

  21.05

  20.44

  Annandale and Eskdale

  6.44

  6.65

  6.66

  6.51

  6.65

  Nithsdale

  12.35

  12.27

  11.71

  10.85

  11.31

  Stewartry

  3.41

  3.48

  3.33

  3.15

  3.59

  Wigtown

  4.30

  4.26

  4.09

  3.78

  3.90

  Dunfermline

  49.73

  49.66

  46.77

  43.83

  41.80

  Kirkcaldy

  44.72

  43.79

  40.63

  37.18

  35.05

  North East Fife

  14.14

  13.85

  12.80

  11.47

  10.62

  Aberdeen

  82.25

  79.58

  76.92

  72.31

  72.20

  Banff and Buchan

  21.02

  21.04

  20.45

  20.54

  20.64

  Gordon

  8.74

  8.78

  8.90

  8.93

  9.06

  Kincardine and Deeside

  7.43

  7.45

  7.35

  7.46

  7.74

  Moray

  17.87

  16.83

  16.20

  15.58

  15.97

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2.81

  2.86

  2.81

  2.82

  2.81

  Caithness

  4.95

  5.01

  4.73

  4.17

  4.11

  Inverness

  22.47

  22.31

  21.02

  19.25

  19.50

  Lochaber

  5.76

  5.94

  5.75

  5.53

  5.46

  Nairn

  1.33

  1.36

  1.28

  1.11

  1.09

  Ross and Cromarty

  11.06

  11.08

  10.02

  8.99

  8.93

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.82

  1.91

  1.85

  1.71

  1.66

  Sutherland

  1.79

  1.85

  1.79

  1.73

  1.72

  East Lothian

  25.94

  25.87

  24.64

  22.76

  24.20

  Edinburgh

  185.60

  186.59

  170.04

  150.95

  141.75

  Midlothian

  12.80

  12.59

  12.43

  11.13

  10.31

  West Lothian

  32.37

  32.97

  31.13

  28.88

  28.80

  Argyll and Bute

  17.58

  17.10

  15.54

  13.20

  12.61

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  5.22

  5.13

  4.82

  4.40

  4.21

  Clydebank

  13.19

  12.22

  11.32

  9.89

  10.09

  Clydesdale

  10.34

  11.05

  10.85

  9.31

  9.36

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  13.86

  13.93

  12.76

  11.61

  11.63

  463

  Net income from non-domestic rates £million 1995–96 prices

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  5.32

  5.52

  5.33

  4.54

  5.05

  Cunninghame

  40.63

  39.52

  36.49

  33.58

  31.70

  Dumbarton

  20.90

  20.47

  19.40

  17.65

  16.80

  East Kilbride

  22.27

  22.25

  20.94

  19.97

  19.24

  Eastwood

  6.60

  6.61

  6.28

  5.85

  5.81

  Glasgow

  277.45

  275.04

  248.93

  220.73

  209.80

  Hamilton

  21.75

  21.54

  20.10

  18.29

  17.71

  Inverclyde

  17.83

  17.96

  16.88

  14.44

  14.63

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  16.51

  16.12

  14.95

  13.34

  13.40

  Kyle and Carrick

  29.10

  29.02

  27.19

  24.38

  23.75

  Monklands

  20.32

  20.17

  18.58

  17.43

  16.78

  Motherwell

  34.39

  32.48

  29.14

  26.85

  26.19

  Renfrew

  50.52

  50.22

  47.95

  43.98

  43.22

  Strathkelvin

  12.38

  12.41

  11.79

  11.33

  10.85

  Angus

  17.36

  16.91

  16.28

  14.17

  13.63

  Dundee

  48.18

  47.52

  43.05

  36.07

  34.53

  Perth and Kinross

  30.77

  31.71

  30.26

  26.97

  25.01

  Orkney

  7.67

  7.21

  5.88

  5.96

  6.04

  Shetland

  24.04

  22.22

  17.29

  17.38

  17.39

  Western Isles

  4.91

  5.15

  4.90

  4.14

  3.92

  Total Scotland

  1,443.74

  1,434.99

  1,330.65

  1,209.76

  1,176.09

  Note:

  source,non-domestic rate income returns—September 1994.

  Figures for districts within Lothian include estimates.

  Deflated using GDP deflator at market prices.

  Atmospheric Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many installations in Scotland require consent from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for atmospheric emissions; and if he will list them. [20844]

  Sir Hector Monro
  In Scotland HM industrial pollution inspectorate is the designated enforcing authority for part A processes under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Integrated pollution control for such processes is being introduced in stages. As of 24 April 1995, 159 authorisations had been issued to 121 operators of prescribed processes. Further applications for authorisations will be required in accordance with the timetable in schedule 3 to the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes) Regulations 1991, as amended.

  Details of both applications and authorisations, including requirements relating to emissions to the atmosphere, may be examined on public registers maintained by the inspectorate and by river purification authorities and district councils in respect of processes operated in their respective areas.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount in cash terms, and as a percentage of the total, of public funds under the control of local enterprise companies. [19939]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The allocation of local enterprise company budgets is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands
  464
  and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that nuclear industry wastes will not be disposed of within the boundaries of Central region. [19885]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: No. It would not be appropriate for policy on this matter to be constrained by local authority boundaries. The Government's policy will be set out later this year when they publish the conclusions to their review of radioactive waste management policy, on which a consultation document was issued in August 1994.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18333]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies for which my Department is responsible to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alan W. Ramage to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply, in relation to Registers of Scotland Executive Agency, to your question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about jobs lost to Agencies in the past two years.
  There have been no jobs lost over the past two years due to the employment of contractors. Overall staff numbers in the Registers of Scotland have declined from 1257.5 on 1 April 1993 to 1065.5 on 1 April 1995. Reductions in staff numbers have resulted from a range of efficiency saving measures and the need to align the size of the organisation to match the market demand for our services.

  Letter from K. MacRae to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  I refer to the Parliamentary Question which you tabled recently to the Secretary of State for Scotland seeking information on the loss of jobs in Agencies during the past two years.
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland which was launched in April 1994. In 1994–95, no jobs have been lost to the Agency due to the employment of contractors or otherwise.
  I trust this represents the information which you were seeking.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply on behalf of Historic Scotland to your recent question about jobs which have been taken over by contractors or have disappeared in the last 2 years.
  Since April 1993 23.5 posts (full-time equivalents) have been given up in Historic Scotland. Of this total 4 posts have been contracted out, with the staff either being redeployed elsewhere within the Agency or retiring. Of the remaining 19.5 posts, 15 were saved as a consequence of the market testing process where the decision was to retain the service in-house. The remaining 4.5 posts were saved by withdrawing staffing from 5 of the least frequently visited monuments in care.
  I hope this information meets your needs.

  Letter from Andrew Macleod to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the loss of jobs in executive agencies of The Scottish Office in the past 2 years.

  465
  During the financial year 1993–94 and 1994–95 no jobs in the Agency have been taken over by contractors. The average number of staff employed by the Agency during 1993–94 was 266, compared with 265 in the previous year. The final figure for 1994–95 will be published in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. We estimate that average employment for the year was around 260.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply, in respect of the Scottish Prison Service, to your question about the loss of jobs in agencies over the last two years as a result of contracting out of work.
  In the Scottish Prison Service market testing has been confined to the part of the Service that maintains buildings and services. A total of 10 establishments have been market tested and in-house teams have been successful in 9 competitions. The number of Scottish Prison Service staff involved in this area has been reduced by seventy-four over the period from 348 at 1 April 1993 to 274 at 1 April 1994. The reduction in numbers of staff largely reflects a reorganisation and restructuring of the in-house teams within the SPS. No staff were made redundant as a consequence of contractors being successful in winning the contract at one establishment.

  Letter from Norman MacLeod to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about jobs lost to Scottish Office Agencies in the past two years, so far as the Scottish Office Pensions Agency is concerned.
  No jobs have been lost to the Agency as a result of work being taken over by contractors but measures to improve efficiency, mainly through better use of information technology, have removed the need for 5 posts. In the same period, however, a number of new posts have been created to deal with new work.

  Letter from Patrick Cadell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  In reply to your question on the number of jobs lost to agencies, I have to say that no jobs have been lost, and no jobs have disappeared as a consequence of our becoming a Next Steps Agency.

  Letter from Dr. R. K. M. Hay to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply on behalf of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (SASA) to your recent question about jobs which have been taken over by contractors or have disappeared in the last 2 years.
  In the last 2 years, 4 Security Guard posts in SASA have been taken over by contractors. To date, no posts have disappeared.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims were made in Scotland (1) for set-aside and (2) in total under the arable area payments scheme in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) in 1994–95 of(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) between £5,001 and £10,000, (c) between £10,001 and £15,000, (d) between £15,001 and £20,000, (e) between £20,001 and £25,000, (f) between £25,001 and £50,000, (g) between £50,001 and £75,000, (h) between £75,001 and £100,000, (i) between £100,001 and £150,000,(j) between £150,001 and £200,000, (k) between £200,001 and £1 million and (1) over £1 million; and what is his latest estimate of the number of claims that will be made in 1995–96 in each value band. [18632]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The numbers of claims made by farmers in Scotland under the arable area payments scheme in the scheme years 1993 and 1994 were as follows:
  466

  (1) Set-aside

  £

  1993

  1994

  0–5,000

  3,361

  3,437

  5,001–10,000

  750

  1,021

  10,001–15,000

  148

  256

  15,001–20,000

  43

  95

  20,001–25,000

  19

  39

  25,001–50,000

  8

  30

  50,001–75,000

  1

  1

  75,001–100,000

  nil

  1

  100,001–150,000

  nil

  nil

  150,001–200,000

  nil

  nil

  200,001–£1 million

  nil

  nil

  Over £1 million

  nil

  nil

  4,330

  4,880

  (2) In total

  £

  1993

  1994

  0–5,000

  5,526

  5,109

  5,001–10,000

  1,232

  1,088

  10,001–15,000

  794

  804

  15,001–20,000

  504

  650

  20,001–25,000

  366

  402

  25,001–50,000

  779

  986

  50,001–75,000

  206

  258

  75,001–100,000

  59

  95

  100,001–150,000

  39

  51

  150,001–200,000

  4

  13

  200,001–£1 million

  5

  4

  Over £1 million

  nil

  nil

  Total

  9,514

  9,460

  Figures are not yet available for the 1995 scheme year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20195]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20194]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Contributions to the annual report are prepared by all sections of the Department. Staff time spent on this activity is not separately recorded, and it is not therefore possible to give a valid estimate of the costs involved.

  Public Sector Housing (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each district authority in Northamptonshire the total discounted value of public sector flats and houses sold in each year since 1991–92. [20279]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest information on total discounted values of dwellings sold by local authorities in Northamptonshire between April 1991 and December
  467
  1994 is given in the table. Actual cash receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which sales were financed by loans from the authorities.

  Discounted value of all sales

  £ million

  Local Authority

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Corby

  2,421

  2,097

  3,678

  1,852

  Daventry

  1,242

  3,061

  1,316

  776

  East Northamptonshire

  1,042

  1,261

  2,368

  1,662

  Kettering

  1,020

  1,029

  1,287

  n/a

  Northampton

  4,197

  2,503

  4,524

  n/a

  South Northamptonshire

  1,109

  1,543

  1,982

  1,618

  Wellingborough

  1,480

  1,165

  991

  1,011

  19 months.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of local authority tenants not in receipt of housing benefit for each local authority in Northamptonshire. [20267]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Based on returns from local authorities for 1994–95, the Department's latest estimates for the numbers of local authority tenants not in receipt of housing benefit in each local authority in Northamptonshire are as follows:

  Local authority

  Council tenants not on housing benefit

  Corby

  3,500

  Daventry

  1,600

  East Northampton

  1,800

  Kettering

  1,700

  Northampton

  5,600

  South Northampton

  1,500

  Wellingborough

  2,500

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total number of households accepted by each local authority in Northamptonshire for each year since 1992–93 for securing permanent accommodation under the homeless provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and subsequent legislation. [20278]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act in their quarterly P1(E) returns.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration gave for the information covering the years 1992 to 1994 to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 4 April 1995, Official Report, column 1049.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total usable receipts held by each local authority in Northamptonshire on 30 March for each year since 1983. [20270]

  Numbers employed in local authorities in Northamptonshire at June of each year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Northamptonshire

  11,784

  9,751

  11,832

  9,735

  11,857

  10,254

  11,890

  10,934

  11,594

  11,223

  11,819

  11,477

  Corby

  527

  122

  550

  112

  582

  108

  572

  141

  583

  170

  580

  135

  468
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The total usable capital receipts held at 31 March in each year from 1990 onwards are given in the table. Information is not available on a comparable basis for years prior to the introduction of the current capital control system in 1990.

  Usable capital receipts held at 31 March

  £ million

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northamptonshire

  13.412

  12.131

  11.829

  0.220

  0.220

  Corby

  2.003

  0.001

  0.120

  0.749

  3.447

  Daventry

  7.311

  6.730

  4.510

  2.884

  0.622

  East Northampton

  5.233

  3.144

  2.402

  2.628

  0.000

  Kettering

  6.000

  2.542

  1.741

  1.481

  2.964

  Northampton

  21.235

  13.849

  10.549

  3.634

  4.523

  South Northampton

  7.021

  2.729

  0.738

  0.000

  2.152

  Wellingborough

  18.461

  14.075

  11.267

  11.840

  11.082

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings were owned by each district council in Northamptonshire at the time the right to buy was introduced; how many are owned at the latest date; what percentage that is of the original figure. [20268]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities in England report the number of dwellings they own on their annual housing investment programme returns. The numbers of dwellings reported by each local authority in Northamptonshire at 1 April 1980 have been compared with those at 1 April 1994, the latest information available.

  Local authority

  (1) Stock of dwellings at 1 April 1994

  (2) Stock of dwellings at 1 April 1980

  (1) as a percentage of (2)

  Corby

  7,631

  13,628

  56.0

  Daventry

  4,095

  6,082

  67.3

  East Northamptonshire

  4,557

  6,047

  75.4

  Kettering

  4,881

  6,626

  75.7

  Northampton

  15,825

  12,925

  122.4

  South Northamptonshire

  3,667

  5,745

  63.8

  Wellingborough

  5,845

  7,750

  75.4

  Right to buy was introduced in October 1980. Changes in local authorities' dwelling stocks include other losses and gains apart from sales through the right to buy. In the case of Northampton district council, the 1994 stock reflects the acquisition of some 6,400 dwellings from the Commission for the New Towns in April 1985.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by each local authority in Northamptonshire(a) full time and (b) part time in each year since 1983. [20272]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is given in the table.
  469

  Numbers employed in local authorities in Northamptonshire at June of each year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Daventry

  268

  48

  268

  43

  275

  53

  287

  54

  298

  59

  311

  79

  East Northamptonshire

  263

  70

  266

  73

  264

  73

  265

  72

  261

  69

  260

  80

  Kettering

  509

  92

  494

  105

  486

  103

  485

  108

  478

  109

  478

  96

  Northampton

  1,606

  172

  1,608

  159

  1,599

  183

  1,606

  178

  1,482

  216

  1,431

  235

  South Northamptonshire

  261

  35

  263

  34

  257

  34

  252

  37

  255

  43

  255

  26

  Wellingborough

  386

  67

  389

  73

  384

  77

  376

  79

  378

  83

  384

  90

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Northamptonshire

  11,536

  11,295

  11,005

  12,365

  10,943

  10,966

  10,752

  10,409

  9,507

  9,870

  n/a

  n/a

  Corby

  613

  134

  667

  153

  621

  135

  613

  133

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Daventry

  n/a

  n/a

  314

  106

  312

  118

  315

  86

  312

  89

  344

  96

  East Northamptonshire

  267

  78

  213

  57

  200

  57

  203

  57

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kettering

  468

  104

  464

  105

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northampton

  n/a

  n/a

  1,554

  192

  1,602

  281

  1,518

  151

  1,429

  255

  1,396

  180

  South Northamptonshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  342

  43

  336

  74

  334

  63

  Wellingborough

  388

  93

  388

  105

  392

  100

  383

  119

  346

  116

  339

  112

  Notes:

  1Provisional data.

  n/a: Data not available.

  1. Education, highways, fire services, law and order and social services are administered by Northamptonshire county council. The other authorities shown are district councils which, among other services, administer housing, planning and refuse collection.

  2. Polytechnics and higher education institutions were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  3. Further education institutions became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council in April 1993.

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch for England.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number and location of Building Research Establishment, Ordnance Survey, Planning Inspectorate, Security Facilities Executive and Buying Agency offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20304]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  One Ordnance Survey post in Edinburgh has been lost as the result of work transferring from Scotland to England during the past five years.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, columns 1052–53, which other Departments have submitted their views to the consultants regarding a single test for contractors and consultants for public sector projects. [20208]

  Mr. Robert. B. Jones
  During the course of its commission, Capita Management Consultancy Ltd. has consulted representatives from the following Government Departments and agencies: Her Majesty's Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Prison Service, the Scottish Office, the Houses of Parliament, the Parliamentary Works Directorate, the Benefits Agency, NHS Estates, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments.

  Housing Renewal Programmes
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the result of his consultation on private housing renewal programmes. [20349]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In due course.

  Renewal Areas
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations led his Department to commission a review of the operation of renewal areas; who is carrying out the review; and when it is expected to report. [20348]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We wish to establish what local authorities have done to progress declared renewal areas, what they have achieved and whether any further guidance from the Department would be helpful. The research project is being undertaken by Austin Mayhead and Company Ltd., which is due to report in July.

  LIFE Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the scope of the EC LIFE programme on the environment over the period 1996 to 1999, indicating how it has changed from the first phase and those areas where the United Kingdom or British-based companies can benefit from the LIFE programme. [20383]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission of the European Communities adopted a proposal for the second phase of the LIFE programme on 12 April 1995. his proposal will
  471
  now go through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament under the co-operation procedure. Until this process has been completed, the scope of the programme cannot be known for certain, but it seems likely that United Kingdom companies will continue to be able to benefit in areas such as new cleaner technologies.

  Corncrake
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the disappearance of the corncrake from mainland Britain and what proposals he has to encourage its reintroduction to the countryside. [20244]

  Mr. Atkins
  The population of the corncrake started to decline in the 19th century and current figures suggest that there are between 500 and 600 pairs in Britain. The present population is primarily concentrated in Scotland where they nest in pasture and rough grassland.

  Since 1991, the Government have been involved in schemes in Scotland to provide financial incentives to landowners and farmers to introduce farming methods which are more conducive to breeding corncrakes. The corncrake is a candidate species under consideration by the biodiversity steering group for an individual action plan to improve its conservation status. The steering group will report later this year.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent his proposal to establish a unitary authority for Wokingham is consistent with his proposals to create unitary authorities in other shire county areas. [20794]

  Mr. Curry
  In taking our decisions for each county we sought to achieve a structure which would best combine effective and convenient local government in the area with a reflection of local identities and interests. With regard to our decisions on Berkshire, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 March 1995 to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),Official Report, columns 123–28.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representatives he has received(a) in support of and (b) against his proposals to establish six unitary local authorities in Berkshire. [20796]

  Mr. Curry
  Prior to our announcement on the future local government structure in Berkshire we received some 5,400 letters, two petitions totalling some 14,300 signatures and 135 pro-forma leaflets. Many of the opinions expressed did not directly relate to our proposal for a six unitary structure. Since the announcement on 21 March, we have received 13 letters, three of which are in favour of the proposal and 10 against.

  Electoral Registration Officers
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the budget available to and (b) the actual expenditure by electoral registration officers in each individual council area, for the most recent year for which figures are available. [20489]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have placed the available information in the Library of the House.

  Capital Expenditure (Housing)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the sum total in constant prices of allocated housing capital expenditure, including housing investment programme allocation, approved development programme allocation, additional credit approvals, specified capital grants and expenditure on housing within the single regeneration budget, and any equivalent schemes and allocations which have previously existed, for(a) 1978–79, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 in (i) each region and (ii) each housing authority area in England. [19887]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on housing investment programme allocations for 1978–79 for each local authority in England is available in the Library.

  For housing investment programme and approved development programme allocations in England in 199495 and 1995–96 I refer the hon. Member to my answer to her question on Thursday 16 February 1995, Official Report, column 799.

  For the housing partnership fund, the cash incentive scheme and the flats over shops scheme allocations for 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to her question on Thursday 16 February 1995, Official Report, column 799.

  Allocations for the housing partnership fund and the cash incentive scheme for 1995–96 have now been made and I have placed in the Library copies of the Department's press notices which announced allocations by English local authority area for these schemes in 1995–96.

  The GDP market price deflator given in the table can be used to exclude the effect of general inflation.

  GDP deflator 1978–79 = 100

  1978–79

  100.0

  1994–95

  292.3

  1995–96

  301.8

  The single regeneration budget challenge fund promotes an integrated approach to local regeneration and it is not possible to identify separately the resources directed at housing. However, we estimate that about 70 of the schemes approved in the first round have a significant housing content and these schemes are expected to receive about £80 million of SRB resources in 1995–96. In addition, the SRB also provides resources for continuing commitments under the estate action programmes and for housing action trusts.

  Local authorities also fund capital expenditure on housing from usable capital receipts and revenue contributions to capital. A number of the programmes lever in additional resources from the private sector.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of environmentally sensitive area grant budget for 1994–95 is still uncommitted(a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of the budget; and if he will make a statement on underspending in environmentally sensitive areas budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95. [19965]
  473
  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure in 1994–95 on payments to farmers in English ESAs was, provisionally, £20.1 million, which represents 65 per cent. of the total provision of £31 million.

  Six new ESAs were launched in 1993 and a further six in 1994, in respect of which first payments will be made in 1995–96. This brings the total in England to 22. Participation is voluntary and interest in the new schemes is growing as farmers become more familiar with the requirements.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20496]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library. In addition to the bodies listed in that publication the Department now sponsors two further executive non-departmental public bodies. These are:Stonebridge housing action trust, Brent
  The National Forest Company

  Each of these organisations produces and publishes an annual report and accounts. Production of the annual report is a statutory requirement except for the Letchworth Garden City corporation and the UK Eco-Labelling Board. Production of the annual accounts is a statutory requirement in all cases.

  Housing action trusts voluntarily make the agendas and minutes for their meetings, except for confidential items, available to the public. Letchworth Garden City corporation voluntarily provides summary minutes available to the public. The minutes and agenda of meetings of the National Rivers Authority statutory committees—the flood defence, rivers advisory and fisheries advisory committees—are open to inspection by members of the public who attend meetings of these committees.

  From 1995, registers of members' interests will voluntarily be made available for public inspection by all of the listed organisations with the exception of Letchworth Garden City corporation, the London residuary body, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the British Board of Agrement.

  Dr Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators, and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20656]

  Sir. Paul Beresford
  Details of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994". A copy is available in the House 474
  of Commons Library. In addition to the bodies listed in that publication the Department now sponsors two further executive non-departmental public bodies. These are:
  Stonebridge housing action trust, Brent
  The National Forest Company

  All these 33 organisations are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner with the exception of the Audit Commission, the British Board of Agrement, Letchworth Garden City corporation, the National Forest Company, the six housing action trusts and the London Pensions Fund Authority. The six housing action trusts and the London Pensions Fund Authority are subject to investigation by the Commission for Local Administration.

  The London Pensions Fund Authority and the London residuary body are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  All the organisations can be subjected to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  All the Departments' executive non-departmental public bodies are expected to adopt the Department's code of practice on open government or adopt a similar code of their own. This is not a statutory code. They are all expected to have key performance measures and targets, information on which is reported in their annual reports; and to abide by the citizens charter.

EMPLOYMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18542]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available only from 12 November 1990 and is detailed in the following table:

  Total number of priority and named day questions answered

  Total number of questions answered within 3 days

  Questions answered (where a holding reply has been sent) within (working days):

  5

  10

  15

  20

  20+

  13,439

  3,037

  361

  17

  9

  9

  6

  1 Information provided up to and including 31 March 1995.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18544]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is available only from 1 January 1992. The Department has written to right hon. or hon Members on 12 occasions to correct answers to parliamentary questions. The information is detailed in the following table:
  475

  Year

  Number of replies issued correcting an answer to a parliamentary question

  1992

  1

  1993

  6

  1994

  3

  19951

  2

  1 Information provided up to and including 6 April 1995.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 247, what will be the maximum number of hours unemployed people receiving the jobseeker's allowance will be able to undertake on training and education courses provided by those independent European social fund courses not directly funded by the Further Education Council; and if he will make a statement. [19724]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People claiming jobseeker's allowance will be able to undertake part-time courses, provided they remain available for and actively seek employment. That carries forward existing arrangements. The rules will, however, be updated to reflect changes in education definitions. Until recently, further education courses were classed by colleges as full or part time, with a threshold of 21 hours per week of supervised study, which could include some private study. Each case was looked at on its merits. This system has now changed, however, and courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council are organised on the basis of guided learning hours. The JSA rules will take account of this change and claimants will be able to undertake FEFC-funded courses of up to 16 guided learning hours per week. Jobseekers will be able to undertake private study in addition to this, as long as they remain available for work and are actively seeking employment. This is designed to allow the same number of claimants to undertake courses as do so under the current arrangements. There will be no such change for courses that are not funded by the FEFC, including any funded by the European social fund. For these, the upper limit will generally continue to he 21 hours per week, with, as now, each case being decided on its merits.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he will give to the Health and Safety Executive in light of its recommendation that the production of refractory ceramic fibre should cease. [20015]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has not recommended that the production of refractory ceramic fibres should cease. The European Commission is preparing a proposal for the classification of refractory ceramic fibres which would require an appropriate hazard warning label to be used when those materials are supplied.

  Safety Reports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what considerations have led to full safety reports prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 476
  1984, S.I.,1984, No. 1902, as amended, for the Health and Safety Executive not being made publicly available on request. [20381]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Safety reports are relevant information for the purposes of section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974, whose disclosure is permitted only in specified circumstances.

  Relevant information may be disclosed with the consent of the person who supplied it or for use in court proceedings or where its disclosure would be for the purposes of the Health and Safety Executive's functions. None of these would allow the general public availability of these reports.

  Any environmental information in a safety report will be made available on request under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, subject to the excepted categories of information in those regulations.

  Seveso Directive
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information Her Majesty's Government have received from the European Commission in regard to the recent submission by Friends of the Earth United Kingdom to the Commission requesting that the United Kingdom be prosecuted for non'compliance with the Seveso directive, 80/501/EEC. [20400]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Pay Increases (Engineering Industry)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average percentage increase in real pay of workers in the engineering industry since 1979. [20560]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The average percentage increase in real pay for mechanical engineering, since 1979, is 44 per cent.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20655]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by the Department:Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members
  Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Trade Union Action
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board
  Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive (HSC/E)
  National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) Remploy Ltd.
  Investors in People UK (IiP)

  All the organisations listed, except for Remploy, are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary

  477
  Commissioner. EOC and NCVQ are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  All the organisations- listed are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. All except for Remploy and IiP UK are subject to statutory provisions for open government in one form or another. HSC/E, EOC, Remploy and IiP UK are subject to performance indicators. All the organisations listed have published citizens charter service standards with the exception of the EOC, which intends to do so, NCVQ and Remploy.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20495]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by the Department:Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members
  Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Trade Union Action
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Engineering Construction Industrial Training Board
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  National Council for Vocational Qualifications Remploy Ltd.
  Investors in People (IiP) UK

  All the organisations listed, except for Remploy and IiP UK, are required by statute to publish annual reports and accounts and Remploy and IiP UK also do so. None of the organisations listed publishes the agendas and minutes of meetings. Remploy voluntarily produces a register of directors' interests which can be inspected at its registered office.

  Fines
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of magistrates court fines for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in(a) the agricultural and (b) the non-agricultural sectors in each of the last 10 years. [19812]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The average level of fines in the lower courts for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and relevant statutory provisions in each of the past six years is shown in the table:

  1Average fine per conviction

  year

  Agricultural sectors £

  Non-agricultural sectors £

  1988–89

  259

  518

  1989–90

  250

  614

  1990–91

  297

  651

  1991–92

  287

  629

  1992–93

  340

  1,038

  1993–942

  627

  2,063

  1figures are for Great Britain: magistrates courts in England and Wales;sheriff courts in Scotland.

  2provisional.

  Figures are not available for precious years.
  478
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of magistrates court fines for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in(a) rural and (b) urban areas in each of the last 10 years. [19813]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: Figures are not available separately for rural and urban areas or for the years before 1988–89. The average level of fines in the lower courts for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and relevant statutory provisions in each of the last six years is shown in the table:

  Year

  Average level of fine 1£

  1988–89

  485

  1989–90

  567

  1990–91

  599

  1991–92

  587

  1992–93

  944

  1993–942

  1,842

  1Figures are for Great Britain: magistrates courts in England and Wales; sheriff courts in Scotland.

  2Provisional.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of magistrates court fines for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 relating to pesticides in(a) rural and (b) urban areas in each of the last 10 years. [19814]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested. The average level of fines in the lower courts for breaches of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 in each of the last six years is shown in the table:

  Year

  1Average fine per conviction £

  1988–89

  330

  1989–90

  338

  1990–91

  305

  1991–92

  142

  1992–93

  213

  1993–942

  286

  1Figures are for Great Britain: magistrates courts in England and Wales; sheriff courts in Scotland.

  2Provisional.

EDUCATION

  Adult Education
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding local authorities' provision of adult education in 1995–1996. [19180]

  Mr.Boswell:
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representation.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to promote parental choice; and if she will make a statement. [19181]
  479
  Mr. Forth
  Parental choice is promoted by the publication of information in comparative performance tables and school prospectuses, by giving parents the right to express a preference for their choice of school and to vote for their school to become grant-maintained, by the establishment of city technology colleges, by enabling schools to become specialist technology and language colleges, by greater diversity in admission arrangements, and by the assisted places scheme.

  Administration Expenditure (Local Authorities)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the adequacy of her powers to control expenditure on administration by local education authorities. [19183]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for individual local education authorities to determine their own spending priorities within the resources available to them. It is to the local electorate that they must justify their decisions. I expect, however, that they will choose to give priority to frontline services, including schools.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the funding of sixth form colleges and other colleges of further education. [19184]

  Mr. Boswell
  The funding available for FE colleges in 1995–96 will increase by 4 per cent. compared with 1994–95.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the level of permanent exclusions from schools. [19185]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has recently commissioned a survey to look at how local education authorities are discharging their new duty to provide education for pupils out of school by reason of exclusion or otherwise. This survey will also collect figures for permanent exclusions for the academic year 1993–94 and the period September to December 1994. The results should be available within the next month.

  School Performance
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessments he has made of the comparative performance of grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools. [19186]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  On average, grant-maintained primary schools achieve better results at key stage 1 than LEA primary schools, and grant-maintained comprehensive schools achieve better GCSE results and higher attendance rates than their LEA counterparts. These comparisons remain true even when socio-economic differences in the schools' intakes are discounted.

  Older Students Allowance
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students are currently entitled to the older students allowance. [19187]
  480
  Mr. Boswell
  About 32,000 students were eligible for the allowance as a part of a mandatory award in 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the withdrawal of the older students allowance. [19192]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, including those from university administrators and student unions.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many mature students were allocated the full amount of the mature students grant. [20791]

  Mr. Boswell
  Provisional figures for the academic year 1993–94 show that local education authorities in England and Wales made 40,000 older students' allowances as part of mandatory awards to students domiciled in their areas. The older students' allowance forms part of the mandatory award for eligible students, but because the award is means-tested it is not possible to identify how many students received the full value of the allowance within the payable award.

  Technical and Mathematical Education
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from Japan about technical and mathematical education in the United Kingdom; what response she is making; and if she will make a statement. [19188]

  Mr. Forth
  We have received no formal representations from Japan about technical and mathematical education.

  Student Financial Support
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations she has received about financial support for students; and if she will make a statement. [19189]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about financial support for students.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the level of grant available to students in(a) further and (b) higher education in each European Union member state for each year since 1990; and what percentage increase or decrease this represents compared to the previous year; [21007]

  (2) what information she has on the projected level of grant available to students in (a) further and (b) higher education for each of the five years for each of the European Union member states; and what percentage increase or decrease this represents relative to projection for the previous year. [20869]

  Mr. Boswell
  Systems of financial support for students undertaking further and higher education courses vary widely across the EU, and the information requested is not available in a comparable form. The guide "The Main Systems of Financial Assistance for Students in Higher Education in the European Community', published by EURYDICE, provides a useful summary of the system in each member state. Copies were placed in the Library last year.
  481
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what sources of funding are available to students who undertake degree courses as mature students. [20792]

  Mr. Boswell
  Mandatory awards and student loans are available as of right to personally eligible mature students on most full-time higher education courses. There are also various postgraduate bursary schemes. Local education authorities can make discretionary awards to mature students who are not personally eligible for mandatory awards. Access funds are available for full-time mature students and certain students have retained eligibility for some benefits.

  Education, Derbyshire
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received this year concerning education in Derbyshire; and if she will make a statement. [19190]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ministers have received a number of letters, covering various topics, both from the hon. Members representing Derbyshire and their constituents. In recent weeks, I have met separate delegations about capital funding for the authority's schools, one led by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) and the other led by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  School Standards
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to boost overall standards in schools. [19193]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  One of the most important forces for improving standards and raising expectations is the national curriculum and its assessment. The independent schools inspectorate has confirmed that both are already helping to raise standards. The revisions to the national curriculum approved by my right hon. Friend, which come into effect from this autumn, will continue our drive for further improvement.

  Other Government policies are also aimed at higher standards, including the regular inspection of publicly funded schools, the promotion of choice for parents and of greater diversity among schools, the publication in performance tables of more information about schools' attainments, and a wider-ranging programme to raise teacher training standards.

  Grant-maintained Schools, East Sussex
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in East Sussex. [19194]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. More than 98 per cent. of parents in East Sussex have not yet had the opportunity to vote in a ballot on GM status for their children's schools.

  School Funding
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to safeguard the funding of schools in the new unitary authorities. [19195]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Each new authority will receive its fair share of the national standard spending assessment totals. It will be for the new authorities themselves to 482
  decide priorities between different services within the total resources available. The Department will be ensuring that these authorities are adequately briefed on their education responsibilities, including local management of schools.

  School Places
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to amend the regulations governing the priority to be given to proximity and local authority area in the allocation of school places. [19196]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Circular 6/93 advises that admission arrangements should be fair and objective, and must of course respect any judgments of the courts. The criteria that may be used in the event of oversubscription are not the subject of regulation.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average class size in(a) private schools and (b) schools run by local education authorities for (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in England. [19197]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994 the average sizes of single-teacher classes in primary and secondary schools in England maintained by local education authorities were 26.9 and 21.5 respectively. These figures do not include grant-maintained schools.

  Information on class sizes in independent schools is not collected centrally.

  Schools' Financial Forecasts
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ascertain the validity of individual schools' predicted deficits or surpluses for the coming year: and if she will make a statement. [19505]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department collects no information on individual schools' forecasts, as distinct from actual surpluses and deficits.

  Higher Education Review
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many submissions she has received to her Department for review of higher education; if she will list the organisations and individuals who have submitted evidence; and if she will publish this evidence. [19991]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received almost 100 submissions to her review of higher education, including copies of comments submitted to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. A list of the organisations and individuals who have commented is being placed in the Library. Subject to their agreement, we intend shortly to make their submissions publicly available.

  Publications
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the publications she has sent to(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) grant-maintained schools in 1994–95. [20405]
  483
  Mr. Robin Squire
  During the financial year 1994–95, the DFE sent the following publications to schools.

  Title

  Primary

  Secondary

  Grant-maintained

  Competitiveness:

  Helping Business to win

  *

  *

  *

  Education Means Business:

  Private Finance in Education

  *

  *

  *

  Governors' Guides to the Law:

  GM Schools

  —

  —

  *

  Voluntary Aided schools

  *

  *

  —

  County Controlled and special Agreement schools

  *

  *

  —

  GM Bulletin (2 editions)

  —

  —

  *

  GM Schools:

  1994/95 Funding worksheet

  *

  *

  *

  GM Schools:

  Appeal Committee information pack

  —

  —

  *

  How To Become a GM school

  *

  *

  *

  National School Tests in 1995

  A Guide for Parents

  *

  *

  *

  Revised National Curriculum Subject Orders

  *

  *

  *

  484

  Title

  Primary

  Secondary

  Grant-maintained

  School and College Performance Tables 1994

  —

  *

  *

  School Teachers' Review Body-Fourth Report

  *

  *

  *

  Schools Update (Termly Newsletter for teachers and governors)

  *

  *

  *

  Secondary School Performance Tables 1994

  *

  *

  *

  Special Educational Needs:

  A Guide for Parents

  *

  *

  *

  Special Educational Needs:

  A Guide to the Tribunal

  *

  *

  *

  Special Educational Needs:

  Code of Practice

  *

  *

  *

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (1994)

  *

  *

  *

  Testing 7 year olds Result (1994)

  *

  —

  *

  Testing 14 year olds Results (1994)

  —

  *

  *

  Updated Parent's Charter (1994)

  *

  *

  *

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish (a) annual

  Name of Body

  Annual Reports

  Annual Accounts

  Minutes of Meetings

  Agendas of Meetings

  Registers of Members' interests

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT)

  yes

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  Education Assets Board (EAB)

  no

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  yes

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

  yes

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  yes

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  National Council for Educational Technology (NCET)

  yes

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  National Youth Agency (NYA)

  yes

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA)

  yes

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  Teacher Training Agency(TTA)

  1yes

  1yes

  no

  no

  no

  1 Statutory requirements.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20654]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is being collected. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision is currently available in each European Union member state for the teaching of foreign languages to children under 12 years of age. [21003]

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not collect information about the teaching of foreign languages in other European Union countries. I understand that relevant information can be found in the EURYDICE publication "The teaching of modern foreign languages in primary and secondary education in the European Community', which is available from the Eurydice Unit London, National Foundation for Educational Research, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2DQ.

  In England and Wales, the national curriculum requires that all children must learn a modern foreign language from the first year of secondary education, that is, when the majority of pupils are 11 years old. Primary schools in England and Wales are not required to teach modern foreign languages and my Department does not collect information on the matter.

  The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know, however, that the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research recently carried out a survey, "Modern Foreign Languages in Primary Schools', which covered England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Fifty-three out of 125 local education authorities responded. The results showed that some 1,919 primary schools, or 22 per cent. of those in the sample, provided some foreign language tuition.
  486
  reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meeting and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20491]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Questions about educational provision in Scotland and Northern Ireland should be addressed to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  North Yorkshire Council Education Department
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the numbers of full-time and part-time staff employed in the education department of the North Yorkshire county council for each of the last 10 years. [20831]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available. Information on staff employed by local authorities is collected in a survey conducted by the Local Government Management Board, but the survey does not distinguish between staff employed in schools and those employed elsewhere.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of student loan borrowers whose payments have been deferred on grounds of level of income earn(a) one half of national average earnings or less and (b) two thirds of national average earnings or less; and what percentage of those borrowers are unemployed. [20828]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally or held by the Student Loans Company.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Hampshire in 1979; and what are the current figures. [20789]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in Hampshire local education authority area in 1979 and 1994

  Position in January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1979

  24.6

  17.4

  1994

  22.4

  16.4

  487
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will state(a) the pupil-teacher ratio and (b) the average class size in (i) 1965, (ii) 1975, (iii) 1985 and (iv) 1995. [20393]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Available information on pupil-teacher ratios and classes sizes is shown in the table. Provisional information for 1995 will be available in July.

  Pupil: teacher ratios and average class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Position in January each year

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  1Average size of single teacher classes

  Primary

  Secondary2

  Primary

  Secondary2

  1965

  28.6

  18.7

  3—

  3—

  1975

  24.2

  17.2

  3—

  21.7

  1985

  22.2

  16.2

  24.9

  20.6

  19944

  22.7

  16.4

  26.4

  21.4

  1Classes as taught during a single selected period on the census day.

  2Figures shown for 1985 exclude sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools in April 1993. Data which excludes sixth form colleges for years 1965 and 1975 are not readily available.

  3Comparable information not available.

  4The latest year for which information is available.

  Youth Credits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been issued to colleges regarding the national implementation of youth credits. [20777]

  Mr. Boswell
  Earlier this month, the Further Education Funding Council circulated a letter to colleges clarifying the position of young people already on courses at colleges. The Department for Education, the Employment Department, the TEC National Council and the Further Education Funding Council are currently finalising a joint note containing more extensive guidance which will he circulated to colleges shortly.

  University Careers Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost to her Department of the University Careers Service. [20559]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally. Individual universities decide what careers advice services to provide for their students from within their overall resources.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the relative merits and successes of general national vocational qualifications and national vocational qualifications. [20575]

  Mr. Boswell
  General national vocational qualifications provide a broad vocational education, as a preparation for employment, further training or higher education. They are proving a great success, with over 160,000 new registrations this year. Evidence from Ofsted and the Further Education Funding Council inspectorate shows that GNVQs are motivating students of all abilities to achieve and succeed. The Government are making available an additional £29 million over the next three years to develop and improve the qualifications further,488
  and to ensure that they are rigorous enough to claim parity of esteem with more familiar qualifications.

  Substantial progress has also been made with NVQs, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment: 86 per cent. of the employed population is now covered by NVQs and almost 765,000 have been awarded. The Government are determined that all NVQs should be of consistently high quality; to that end, a survey of the top 100 NVQs is being carried out this year, with all NVQs being reviewed by March 1998.

DEFENCE

  BMARC
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the export of arms to(a) Iran and (b) Iraq by BMARC between 1988 and 1991. [19081]

  Mr. Freeman
  No licences were granted for the export of defence equipment from BMARC to Iran between 1988 and 1991. The question of the export of defence equipment to Iraq between 1984 and 1990 is being considered by Sir Richard Scott's inquiry and it would be inappropriate for me to comment until Sir Richard has reported. A trade and economic embargo against Iraq prohibited the export of such equipment from 8 August 1990.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was first informed of allegations that Singapore was a conduit for arms exported by the company BMARC to Iran. [19078]

  Mr. Freeman
  As far as can be ascertained, the Ministry of Defence first became aware of these allegations during evidence given to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, HC 86–x 1991–9.

  Porton Down Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department has paid financial compensation to individuals as a consequence of experiments carried out at Porton Down, which experiments resulted in the payment of compensation; and how much compensation was paid. [20848]

  Mr. Freeman
  None. In no case over the past 40 years has injury or illness been shown to have resulted from participation in studies at Porton Down.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the total number of people who have been used in(a) radiological, (b) chemical and (c) biological experiments by his Department in each of the last 30 years. [20850]

  Mr. Freeman
  A small number of volunteers have taken part in ethically supervised studies, involving the low intake of short-lived radio-isotopes, over many years. The total number involved is not held centrally. The number of volunteers participating in experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in each of the last 30 years was set out in the answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 20 March,Official Report, column 77.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments his Department have undertaken to determine the extent and effect of a nuclear attack on a British city. [20972]

  Mr. Freeman
  Studies have been conducted over many years to assess the effects of nuclear weapons.

  Official Service Residences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of overnight guests staying at each of his Department's official service residences during the last five years. [20849]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of overnight guests staying at official service residences are shown in the table, but information is available only for the periods shown in the table. A number of OSRs, particularly those in London, are not large enough to accommodate guests. In addition, the number of overnight stays may be understated in some cases because records have not always been retained, particularly where a change of occupancy has occurred.

  Residence

  Period

  Number of Guests

  1

  September 1992-July 1994

  0

  2

  September 1992-July 1994

  6

  3

  July 1994-February 1995

  32

  4

  June 1993-August 1994

  6

  5

  January 1993-September 1994

  36

  6

  January 1993-June 1994

  11

  7

  December 1993-July 1994

  30

  8

  July 1992-September 1994

  28

  9

  March 1994-July 1994

  3

  10

  August 1992-July 1994

  16

  11

  November 1992-July 1994

  16

  12

  September 1992-July 1994

  0

  13

  September 1992-July 1994

  Note 1

  14

  October 1993-July 1994

  Note 1

  15

  October 1992-September 1994

  84

  16

  September 1992-August 1994

  106

  17

  September 1992-July 1994

  20

  18

  September 1992-August 1994

  210

  19

  September 1992-July 1994

  9

  20

  September 1993-July 1994

  41

  21

  November 1992-August 1994

  123

  22

  April 1993-July 1994

  7

  23

  August 1992-July 1994

  28

  24

  September 1992-July 1994

  8

  25

  September 1992-July 1994

  Note 1

  26

  Note 2

  0

  27

  September 1992-October 1994

  0

  28

  August 1992-July 1994

  17

  29

  May 1994-September 1994

  2

  30

  September 1992-July 1994

  Note 1

  31

  September 1992-July 1994

  54

  32

  September 1993-April 1994

  Note 1

  33

  September 1992-July 1994

  Note 1

  34

  September 1992-July 1994

  9

  35

  August 1992-July 1994

  70

  36

  May 1993-July 1994

  64

  37

  September 1992-July 1994

  56

  38

  April 1994-February 1995

  12

  39

  April 1993-June 1994

  30

  40

  June 1993-October 1994

  Note 1

  41

  January 1994-September 1994

  7

  42

  January 1994-February 1995

  14

  43

  October 1993-August 1994

  Note 1

  44

  March 1993-July 1994

  Note 1

  45

  February 1993-July 1994

  25

  46

  August 1993-August 1994

  73

  47

  October 1992-March 1994

  Note 1

  490

  Residence

  Period

  Number of Guests

  48

  November 1991-May 1994

  30

  49

  October 1992-June 1994

  81

  50

  August 1992-July 1994

  19

  51

  April 1993-April 1994

  57

  52

  February 1993-July 1994

  Note 1

  53

  February 1993-July 1994

  Note 1

  54

  April 1993-August 1994

  51

  55

  September 1992-September 1994

  34

  56

  April 1993-June 1994

  0

  57

  August 1992-July 1994

  109

  58

  Note 2

  0

  59

  August 1992-July 1994

  72

  60

  April 1994-August 1994

  2

  61

  December 1993-July 1994

  5

  62

  July 1993-July 1994

  78

  63

  September 1992-July 1994

  40

  64

  August 1992-July 1994

  40

  65

  August 1992-July 1994

  52

  66

  September 1992-July 1994

  26

  67

  August 1992-July 1994

  38

  68

  August 1992-July 1994

  16

  69

  April 1994-August 1994

  13

  70

  February 1994-August 1994

  14

  71

  August 1992-August 1994

  91

  72

  August 1992-July 1994

  41

  73

  September 1992-July 1994

  63

  74

  August 1992-July 1994

  116

  75

  August 1992-July 1994

  91

  Residence numbers relate to those provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 20 March, Official Report, column 80.

  Notes:

  1 Records not readily available.

  2 New OSR—overnight stays yet recorded.

  Arms Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what growth targets for the European arms industry he has discussed with his European colleagues. [19444]

  Mr. Freeman
  Although the Departments takes an interest in the overall size and shape of the defence industry, the setting of growth targets is a matter for industry itself.

  Household Cavalry
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equestrian winter training activities are conducted by the Household Cavalry. [19541]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment's equestrian winter training activities which are required to maintained the standards of equitation necessary for their ceremonial duties, consist of cross-country riding, hacking, indoor and outdoor schooling, jumping hunting and drag hunting.

  Overseas Posts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 March,Official Report, columns 75–76, (1) if he will list the other allowances currently at the disposal of service attaches and defence advisers in each overseas post, giving the value in each case; and if he will make a statement; [19274]
  491
  (2) if he will list the number and location of British defence liaison staff employed overseas; if he will set out the current official entertainment allowance to which each post holder is entitled; if he will give the total cost of each posting for the last financial year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement; [19162]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the role and function of British defence liaison staff employed overseas. [19163]

  Plowden allowances—£(per capita rates for defence attachés/advisers)

  Post

  1Rep Sup

  2RAA

  3AIRS/DGH

  4Babysitting

  5Local Nanny

  6UK Nanny

  Abu Dhabi

  1,902

  3,203

  1,821

  1,687

  —

  —

  Accra

  1,633

  2,256

  2,520

  469

  —

  —

  Algiers

  1,784

  3,203

  598

  1,911

  3,030

  —

  Amman

  2,751

  3,203

  2,895

  2,282

  —

  —

  Ankara

  2,419

  3,203

  475

  779

  —

  —

  Athens

  3,115

  3,203

  4,986

  1,507

  —

  —

  Bangkok

  2,442

  3,203

  3,063

  721

  —

  —

  Beirut

  2,355

  2,256

  2,329

  615

  —

  —

  Belgrade

  1,212

  3,203

  2,533

  1,533

  —

  —

  Berne

  3,502

  2,256

  5,410

  6,155

  —

  —

  Bogota

  4,448

  2,256

  1,162

  2,056

  —

  —

  Bonn

  2,471

  3,203

  9,365

  2,579

  —

  —

  Brasilia

  2,493

  3,203

  2,299

  1,950

  5,093

  —

  Bratislava

  1,536

  2,256

  930

  666

  —

  —

  Bridgetown

  2,037

  3,203

  2,571

  3,634

  —

  —

  Brussels

  2,204

  3,203

  3,204

  3,255

  —

  —

  Bucharest

  1,903

  2,256

  426

  1,327

  —

  —

  Budapest

  1,886

  3,203

  3,649

  1,396

  6,423

  —

  Buenos Aires

  3,922

  3,203

  1,747

  5,059

  11,699

  —

  Cairo

  2,249

  3,203

  6,156

  1,559

  —

  —

  Canberra

  2,373

  4,656

  9,522

  3,120

  —

  —

  Caracas

  2,066

  3,203

  1,024

  501

  3,007

  —

  Copenhagen

  4,295

  2,256

  4,920

  2,550

  —

  —

  Damascus

  1,970

  3,203

  1,859

  1,706

  —

  —

  Dhaka

  1,880

  3,203

  1,692

  —

  —

  —

  Dublin

  2,564

  3,203

  3,520

  2,251

  —

  —

  Guatemala City

  1,888

  3,203

  728

  275

  —

  —

  The Hague

  3,125

  3,203

  3,049

  1,631

  —

  —

  Harare

  1,752

  3,203

  1,400

  487

  —

  —

  Helsinki

  3,130

  2,256

  956

  2,133

  —

  —

  Islamabad

  1,927

  3,203

  2,494

  —

  1,308

  6,470

  Jakarta

  1,656

  3,203

  655

  326

  —

  —

  Kampala

  1,923

  2,256

  1,493

  525

  —

  —

  Kathmandu

  1,359

  3,203

  1,159

  351

  —

  —

  Kiev

  3,806

  3,203

  1,710

  105

  —

  —

  Kingston

  1,804

  3,203

  1,145

  583

  —

  —

  Kuala Lumpur

  2,000

  3,203

  3,291

  1,610

  —

  —

  Kuwait City

  2,083

  3,203

  1,912

  1,263

  —

  —

  Lagos

  2,913

  3,203

  1,260

  671

  2,266

  —

  Lisbon

  2,629

  2,256

  6,045

  1,853

  5,676

  —

  Madrid

  1,415

  3,203

  4,052

  2,141

  —

  4,697

  Mexico City

  2,076

  3,203

  4,820

  2,365

  —

  —

  Moscow

  1,745

  3,203

  4,893

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Muscat

  2,408

  3,203

  2,721

  1,329

  —

  —

  Nairobi

  2,248

  3,203

  832

  517

  —

  —

  New Delhi

  2,016

  3,203

  2,339

  489

  1,622

  —

  Nicosia

  2,257

  3,203

  7,923

  2,930

  5,571

  —

  Oslo

  2,836

  2,256

  1,345

  3,146

  —

  —

  Ottawa

  2,929

  3,203

  7,693

  2,696

  —

  —

  Paris

  3,576

  3,203

  11,813

  3,129

  9,895

  —

  Peking

  4,137

  3,203

  1,710

  904

  —

  9,778

  Prague

  1,908

  3,203

  4,650

  1,318

  —

  —

  Pretoria

  2,211

  3,203

  3,890

  981

  —

  —

  Rabat

  1,847

  2,256

  —

  594

  2,311

  —

  Riga

  1,399

  3,203

  211

  1,367

  —

  5,715

  Riyadh

  2,469

  3,203

  9,108

  2,439

  5,128

  —

  Rome

  3,647

  3,203

  5,613

  3,581

  —

  5,433

  Santiago

  2,661

  3,203

  3,296

  1,282

  2,280

  —

  Seoul

  2,967

  3,203

  8,643

  2,175

  —

  —

  492
  Mr. Freeman
  British defence liaison staff is a term which is used in some cases to describe the office of the British defence attach' or adviser and their numbers are not identified separately from lists of attaches and advisers. In addition to those cost of living and related allowances which are received by all service men and civil servants deployed abroad, service and defence attaches and advisers are eligible for the following allowances, which are calculated, monitored and revised by the Foreign Office.
  493

  Plowden allowances—£ (per capitarates for defence attachés/advisers)

  Post

  1Rep Sup

  2RAA

  3AIRS/DGH

  4Babysitting

  5Local Nanny

  6UK Nanny

  Singapore

  3,435

  3,203

  4,638

  1,955

  —

  —

  Sofia

  1,905

  2,256

  924

  380

  —

  —

  Stockholm

  3,577

  3,203

  2,730

  2,750

  —

  —

  Tel Aviv

  2,455

  3,203

  5,621

  3,519

  —

  —

  Tokyo

  4,035

  3,203

  15,705

  5,671

  —

  —

  Vienna

  1,892

  2,256

  5,069

  2,254

  —

  —

  Warsaw

  3,152

  3,203

  1,983

  1,212

  —

  —

  Washington (7)

  10,936

  2,223

  16,601

  —

  —

  —

  Wellington

  2,526

  3,203

  3,246

  1,262

  —

  —

  Zagreb

  1,526

  2,256

  463

  1,016

  —

  —

  Plowden allowances—£ (per capita rates for defence attachésladvisers)

  Post

  1Rep Sup

  2RAA

  3AIRS/DGH

  4Babysitting

  5Local Nanny

  6UK Nanny

  Abu Dhabi AA

  1,902

  2,256

  1,821

  —

  —

  —

  Amman AA

  2,751

  2,256

  2,895

  2,282

  —

  —

  Ankara AA

  2,419

  2,256

  475

  779

  —

  —

  Athens NA/AA

  3,115

  3,203

  4,986

  1,507

  —

  —

  Bonn NA

  2,903

  3,203

  9,365

  2,579

  —

  —

  Bonn AA

  2,903

  3,203

  9,365

  2,579

  —

  —

  Bonn ADA

  1,246

  1,689

  7,004

  2,579

  —

  —

  Brasilia NA

  2,493

  3,203

  2,299

  1,950

  5,093

  —

  Buenos Aires AA

  2,586

  3,203

  Nil

  4,216

  11,699

  —

  Cairo NA/AA

  2,249

  2,256

  6,156

  1,559

  —

  —

  Canberra MA

  2,756

  3,203

  8,141

  3,120

  —

  —

  Canberra AA

  2,756

  3,203

  8,141

  3,120

  —

  —

  The Hague MA/AA

  3,125

  2,256

  3,049

  1,631

  —

  —

  Islamabad NA/AA

  2,000

  3,203

  2,494

  —

  1,308

  6,470

  Kuala Lumpur ADA

  1,232

  1,689

  1,764

  1,610

  —

  —

  Madrid MA/AA

  1,415

  3,203

  4,052

  2,141

  —

  4,497

  Moscow NA

  1,744

  3,203

  4,893

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Moscow MA

  1,744

  3,203

  4,893

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Moscow ANA

  2,167

  1,689

  1,435

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Moscow AMA

  2,167

  1,689

  1,435

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Moscow AAA

  2,167

  1,689

  1,435

  2,493

  —

  10,483

  Muscat NA/AA

  2,377

  2,256

  2,721

  1,329

  —

  —

  New Delhi NA

  1,507

  3,203

  1,573

  489

  1,622

  —

  New Delhi AA

  1,507

  3,203

  1,573

  489

  1,622

  —

  Oslo MA/AA

  2,114

  2,256

  808

  2,622

  —

  —

  Paris NA

  3,274

  3,203

  8,012

  3,129

  9,895

  —

  Paris MA

  3,274

  3,203

  8,012

  3,129

  9,895

  —

  Paris AAA

  3,835

  1,689

  2,690

  1,564

  9,895

  —

  Peking NA

  4,137

  3,203

  1,710

  904

  —

  9,778

  Pretoria NA

  1,623

  2,256

  1,373

  981

  —

  —

  Riyadh NA/AA

  1,686

  2,256

  1,947

  1,524

  5,128

  —

  Rome NA

  3,647

  3,203

  5,613

  3,581

  —

  5,433

  Rome AA

  3,647

  3,203

  5,613

  3,581

  —

  5,433

  Seoul NA/AA

  2,967

  3,203

  8,643

  2,175

  —

  —

  Singapore AA

  2,148

  1,689

  1,016

  1,955

  —

  —

  Stockholm NA/MA

  2,946

  2,256

  2,067

  2,750

  —

  —

  Tel Aviv NA/AA

  1,830

  2,256

  4,001

  2,815

  —

  —

  Tokyo MA/AA

  4,035

  3,203

  15,705

  5,671

  —

  —

  Washington NA

  —

  3,186

  11,283

  —

  —

  —

  Washington MA

  —

  3,186

  11,283

  —

  —

  —

  Washington AA

  —

  3,186

  11,283

  —

  —

  —

  Washington ANA

  —

  2,223

  3,166

  —

  —

  —

  Washington AMA

  —

  2,223

  3,166

  2,522

  —

  —

  Washington AAA

  —

  2,223

  3,166

  2,522

  —

  —

  Warsaw NA/MA

  2,152

  2,256

  1,983

  1,212

  —

  —

  Explanatory Notes:

  1REP SUP—Representational supplement. To meet the cost of maintaining an official residence for representational purposes.

  2RAA—Representational attachment allowance. Based on half diplomatic service allowance which is paid to FCO personnel only. Paid to compensate service personnel for additional expenditure incurred while performing a representational job which is outside the normal duties of a service career.

  3AIRS/DGH—Accountable indirect representational supplement/domestic and gardening help. Specifically to assist the attaché/adviser with his representational functions and commitments only.

  4,5,6AIRS/CC—Accountable indirect representational supplement/child care. Costs are divided into the three categories specified—only one allowance may be claimed, depending on circumstances, for children aged under 13.

  7These figures include the head of the British defence staff—the defence attaché—the head of British defence intelligence liaison staff, and nine civilians accredited as attaches.
  494 495

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [19665]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  (a)

  1992–93

  16.740

  1993–94

  21.479

  1994–95

  15.000

  1 The figures for 1994–95 is an estimate since figures for this period are not yet complete.

  (b) This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (c) Although information is not available is not in the form requested, the average cost of a move of home at public expense is:

  Year

  £

  1992–93

  25,000

  1993–94

  38,000

  1994–95

  30,000

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [19428]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department employs one political adviser. Salaries and conditions of work for political advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants. My Department employs the following numbers by grade, all of whom are full time.

  Grade 5: 1

  Grade 7: 1

  Senior economic assistant: 1

  Sock Tendering
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the organisation that won tender No. 4964A for the supply of men's wool/nylon black socks to his Department. [19441]

  Mr. Freeman
  Tender No. 4964A cannot be identified. However, a contract for men's wool/nylon black socks was recently let following a competitive tender. The winning tenderer was HG Sock Group Ltd. and the contract was placed on 16 February 1995.

  Departmental Dwellings
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and location of(a) dwellings and (b) vacant dwellings owned by his Department in (i) each district of Hampshire and (ii) Hampshire.
  496
  Mr. Freeman
  As at 31 March, my Department owned the following dwellings and vacant dwellings in Hampshire:

  Total Number owned

  Number vacant

  Basingstoke

  21

  1

  Portsmouth and Gosport

  3,546

  462

  Petersfield

  137

  13

  Middle Wallop

  536

  42

  Winchester

  441

  119

  Marchwood

  296

  51

  Bordon

  707

  114

  Aldershot

  2,293

  271

  Odiham

  734

  82

  Farnborough

  77

  6

  Oakhanger

  92

  0

  New Forest

  1

  1

  Statistics on Ministry of Defence dwellings are not maintained by local authority districts and such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The locations listed are those of the service units, but the married quarters attached to those units may not necessarily be at the same location.

  A large number of the vacant dwellings were undergoing or awaiting major maintenance, held for future deployments or formed part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 349, how much in total was spent by his Department on central consultancy contracts in 1993–94; and if he will list the 10 most valuable central consultancy contracts issued that year, indicating the nature of the work undertaken, the body awarded the contract and the fee paid, in each case. [19997]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number and value of consultancy contracts are not recorded centrally; thus the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trident
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Trident D5 II missiles have been procured; and how many more he intends to procure; [19107]

  (2) how many MK6 guidance systems for Trident missiles are to be procured for the United Kingdom. [19109]

  Mr. Freeman
  The UK has procured 44 Trident D5 missiles to date. Final decisions have yet to be taken on how many more missiles are to be procured. The intention is to procure sufficient guidance sytems to support the eventual number of UK missiles.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Defence if the United States authorities have made any increase in the price of D5 missiles due to reductions in the overall rate of manufacture of these missiles; and if he will make a statement. [19108]

  Mr. Freeman
  Price negotiated for the next order of Tirdent D5 missiles will not be finalised until late this
  497
  year, following the annual US authorisation and appropriations process.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many spare MK6 guidance systems are to be deployed in each United Kingdom Trident submarine. [19110]

  Mr. Freeman
  Each UK Trident submarine will generally carry one spare MK6 guidance system per four missiles.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20492]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested in respect of MOD's executive non-departmental public bodies is as follows:(a) and (b) there is a statutory right for the public to inspect the annual accounts for all the service museums, held by the Charities Commission; and for the annual report and accounts in respect of the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, held at Companies House and the Oil and Pipelines Agency. The OPA's annual report and accounts are also laid before each House of Parliament.
  (c) and (d) the public do not have a statutory right to attend board meetings or to inspect the minutes of meetings of any of MOD's executive NDPBs.
  (e) appointees for the OPA and SSVC are required to declare any personal interests and records are maintained. In the case of the SSVC any director's disclosures are also registered at Companies House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20653]

  Mr. Freeman
  Although none of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to(a) or (b), they are all subject to the remaining provisions.

  University Air Squadrons
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many undergraduates are currently flying members of each university air squadron in 1994–95. [20846]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of undergraduates who were flying members of each university air squadron on 1 March is as follows:

  Aberdeen, Dundee and St. Andrews

  42

  Birmingham

  47

  Bristol

  51

  Cambridge

  45

  East Lowlands

  47

  East Midlands

  53

  Glasgow and Strathclyde

  36

  Liverpool

  43

  London

  88

  Manchester and Salford

  47

  498

  Northumbrian

  48

  Oxford

  54

  Queen's

  46

  Southampton

  57

  Wales

  43

  Yorkshire

  54

  Squadron commanders are encouraged to recruit slightly in excess of the student pilot establishment at the start of each academic year to allow for those who subsequently drop out from training.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received with respect to the decision not to submit an in-house bid in the market-testing exercise for the support services at RAF Valley during the current financial year. [20863]

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposal for contractorisation of support services at RAF Valley without an in-house bid is currently the subject of national consultation. Consultation started on 20 April 1995 and ends on 5 June 1995. No representations have yet been received.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what proportion of market-testing exercises under his Department's rubric in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 have not been accompanied by in-house bids; what is the anticipated proportion of market-testing exercises without in-house bids during 1995–96. [20865]

  Mr. Freeman
  Market testing is an integral part of the wider "Competing for Quality" process, and involves testing the efficiency of an in-house service by exposing it to competition with commercial bidders.

  In the 12–month period from 1 October 1993 to 30 September 1994, 42 defence support activities were subjected to the "Competing for Quality' process, of which five were market-tested and two were won by the in-house bid.

  From 1 October 1994 to date, of the 23 activities examined only one has been subject to a market test. This was won by a commercial bidder.

  It is not known what the anticipated proportion of market-testing exercises will be in 1995–96. This will depend on the outcome of feasibility studies which determine how best activities can be exposed to competition from the private sector.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he has issued to the Royal Air Force with respect to the circumstances in which the Air Force(a) will and (b) will not submit in-house bids in market-testing exercises for support services at RAF stations. [20864]

  Mr. Freeman
  No guidelines have been issued to the Royal Air Force with respect to the submission of in-house bids in market-testing exercises for support services at RAF stations. The circumstances of each activity or function will differ and each is looked at individually under the "Competing for Quality" procedures. Market testing is encouraged wherever it is the appropriate way forward.
  499
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence what target has been set for out-of-house successes in bids under market-testing procedures undertaken during the present financial year. [20866]

  Mr. Freeman
  No targets are set for out-of-house successes in bids under market-testing procedures in any financial year. The outcome of a market test is based solely on the merits and value for money and quality of service demonstrated by competing bidders.

  Aircraft Leases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft have been leased overseas in each of the last 10 years; and if he will specify the type of aircraft leased. [18296]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The only lease of MOD aircraft in the last 10 years to 31 March 1995 for which records can be found was of VC10 K3 tanker aircraft to the Italian air force on one occasion in 1987 and twice in 1988.

TRANSPORT

  Foreign-registered Ships
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-owned ships, excluding ferries, are registered under foreign flags; and under which flags they are registered. [19295]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  United Kingdom owned vessels1 registered under foreign flags2 at 31 December 1994

  Number of vessels of 100 gross tons and over

  Trading vessels

  Other vessels3

  All vessels

  Other registries

  Australia

  3

  1

  4

  Bahamas

  91

  11

  102

  Barbados

  3

  7

  10

  Belize

  0

  1

  1

  Canada

  0

  1

  1

  Croatia

  1

  0

  1

  Denmark

  0

  1

  1

  France

  1

  0–

  1

  French Antarctic Territory

  1

  0

  1

  Honduras

  3

  1

  4

  India

  1

  0

  1

  Irish Republic

  9

  1

  10

  Liberia

  12

  1

  13

  Nigeria

  1

  2

  3

  Norway (NIS)

  18

  0

  18

  Netherlands

  0

  1

  1

  Panama

  13

  23

  36

  Poland

  2

  0

  2

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  11

  19

  30

  Vanuatu

  1

  4

  5

  Unknown

  3

  7

  10

  Total non-UK registries

  174

  81

  255

  1 Excluding ro-ro cargo and ro-ro passenger vessels.

  2 This is excluding ships registered in the UK, Crown dependencies, and dependent territories.

  3 Such as fishing vessels, tugs and offshore support vessels, together with passenger or cargo vessels deemed to be non-trading because of their current use.

  500
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ferries operating from British ports are registered under foreign flags; and under which flags they are registered. [19297]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of foreign flagged ferries operating from ports in the United Kingdom.
  As of 6 April 1995, there were 42 foreign registered ferries sailing from ports in the UK under the following flags:-

  Bahamas

  Belgium

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Eire

  Faeroes

  France

  Greece

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Sweden

  Shipping Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to delegate to classification societies(a) hull and machinery surveys on ferries and (b) any other inspections currently carried out by the Marine Safety Agency. [19296]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations to allow the delegation of hull and machinery surveys on passenger ships are expected to be laid before Parliament shortly. These will not include delegation of hull and machinery surveys for roll-on roll-off ferries which will continue to be conducted by surveyors from the Marine Safety Agency. Pending the completion of work on ferry safety currently being undertaken in the International Maritime Organisation following the loss of the Estonia, it has been decided not to delegate these surveys to the originally planned timescale. There are no plans to delegate inspections currently carried out by the Marine Safety Agency.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships, excluding ferries, have been prevented from sailing by the Marine Safety Agency because they have not met safety standards over the last two years; which flags they were sailing under; and in which respects they failed to meet the standards. [19298]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of foreign flagged ships, excluding ferries, which have been prevented from sailing by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) over the last two years.
  Between January and December 1993 the Surveyor General's Organisation (as the MSA then was) detained 174 foreign flagged ships. Over the same period in 1994, the MSA detained 224 vessels. The ships were registered with the following states.

  Flag state

  Antilles Netherlands

  Antigua and Barbuda

  501

  Azerbaijan

  Bahamas

  Belize

  Bulgaria

  Union of Myanmar

  People's Republic of China

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Guinea-Bissau

  Honduras

  Iceland

  India

  Ireland

  Italy

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Liberia

  Lithuania

  Luxemburg

  Malta

  Mexico

  Morocco

  Netherlands

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Romania

  Russia

  Spain

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  Sweden

  Syria

  Taiwan

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  In general, vessels were detained for failure to meet the standards for life saving, fire detection and fire fighting equipment, contravention of the load line provisions, deficiencies in radio installation, navigational equipment and the ship's structure. Detention was also imposed for failure to meet manning requirements and poor operational procedures. A summary of the defects which led to the detention of a ship can be found in the list of ships under detention in UK ports which has been published by the MSA each month since June 1994.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ferries have been prevented from sailing by the Marine Safety Agency because they have not met safety standards over the last two years; which flags they were flying under; and in which respects they failed to meet the standards. [19299]

  Mr. Morris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  502
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of ferries prevented from sailing by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) over the last two years.
  One ferry has been detained by the MSA in the last two years. In October 1994, during the inspection campaign conducted by the MSA after the loss of the ESTONIA, the Danish registered WINSTON CHURCHILL was detained when her stern door was found to be leaking after a hose test, due to failure of the rubber seal.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the budget of the Marine Safety Agency for the last two years; and what are the estimated budgets for this year and the next two years. [19300]

  Mr. Morris
  The gross budgets for the Marine Safety Agency for the financial years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  128.5

  1994–95

  31.7

  1995–96

  30.8

  1996–97

  30.0

  1997–98

  30.0

  1 The Marine Safety Agency was not launched until 1 April 1994. The figure given for 1993–94 relates to the part of the Department of Transport which preceded the agency.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls the Marine Safety Agency has over ships sailing in British waters which do not dock in British ports. [19301]

  Mr. Norris
  International law limits the right of coastal states to interfere with foreign-flagged ships exercising the right of innocent passage through territorial waters or transit passage through straits used in international navigation. Only if the ship has been involved in an accident or poses a threat of pollution or threatens the peace or security of the coastal state can the coastal state intervene.

  The position of foreign-flagged ships anchored or operating in territorial waters, and not on innocent or transit passage, is different, and Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas', recommended that we should extend our powers in respect of such ships to the maximum extent allowed under international law. The Department will shortly issue a consultation paper on how this can be achieved. The consultation paper will take account of changes stemming from the recent adoption of an EC directive on port state control which provides for the inspection and, if appropriate, detention of foreign-flagged vessels anchored near a port or offshore installation.

  Ferries (Evacuation Procedures)
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State how many ferries operating out of British ports do not have facilities for 100 per cent, dry shod evacuation. [19302]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  503
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the number of ferries operating with facilities for 100% dry-shod evacuation.
  At present there are 49 vessels of British registry operating out of United Kingdom ports and of these 45 have 100% dry-shod evacuation capability.
  With regard to the 45 foreign vessels the information requested is not available but the vessels must comply with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Under that convention those constructed since 1 July 1986 will have the facility for over 100% dry-shod evacuation. As older ships are replaced the number with less than 100% dry shod evacuation will reduce.

  Herald of Free Enterprise Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the long-term recommendations of the Herald of Free Enterprise report have not yet been implemented; and when he expects these to be implemented. [19303]

  Mr. Norris
  All of the recommendations of the court of inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise have been taken forward. Of the long-term recommendations, after consultation and consideration, two were considered unnecessary and two others were addressed in alternative ways.

  The Government believe that there are no recommendations left to be implemented. All have been considered and action taken where appropriate.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the report into the Herald of Free Enterprise which to date have not been implemented and the target dates for implementation. [19388]

  Mr. Norris
  All the recommendations of the court of inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise have been taken forward. After consultation and consideration, one recommendation was not supported at the time and some others were not developed further in the light of subsequent technical appraisal, or were taken forward in ways different to those recommended by the inquiry for reasons of technical practicality or because of international developments.

  The Government believe that there are no recommendations left to be implemented. All have been considered and action taken where appropriate.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether this in each case is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20506]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:(a) The London Regional Passengers Committee and Traffic Director for London, each under a statutory requirement.
  (b) The Traffic Director for London publishes annual accounts under a statutory requirement. My right hon. Friend is required by statute to lay before Parliament the accounts of the general lighthouse fund which consolidate the accounts of the general lighthouse authorities; the Corporation of Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. On a voluntary basis,
  504
  the LRPC's accounts will, for the first time, be published in the annual report for 1994–95.
  (c) Minutes of LRPC meetings are voluntarily circulated to interested organisations and made available to members of the public who attend meetings and to anyone else on request. As a statutory requirement, the LRPC sends minutes of meetings to my right hon. Friend, the Rail Regulator and the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee.
  (d) The LRPC voluntarily circulates agendas of meetings to the press, local authorities and transport user groups and makes them available to members of the public on request.
  (e) None.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20666]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:(a) Traffic Director for London
  Northern Lighthouse Board
  Trinity House
  London Regional Passengers Committee.
  (b) and (c) Information on audit arrangements for all four bodies in (a), except the London Regional Passengers Committee, is set out in "Public Bodies 1994". From 1994–95 the LRPC is to be subject to NAO scrutiny.
  (d) As for (a), where this is regarded as meaning compliance with the code of practice on open government.
  (e) Performance indicators have been set for the Traffic Director for London. The London Regional Passengers Committee sets its own performance targets. A system of indicators for the general lighthouse authorities is under discussion.
  (f) All bodies are encouraged to follow the principles of the citizens charter.

  Road Accidents (Over-60s)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the quarterly figures for deaths in road accidents for people aged 60 years and over in Birmingham for 1990 to 1994; and what were(a) the national figures for 1990 to 1994 and (b) the figures for his Department's baseline years of 1991 to 1985. [20800]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Data for 1994 are not yet available.

  Road accidents fatalities to people aged 60 and over: Birmingham metropolitan district council and Great Britain 1990–1993

  Fatalities

  Calendar year

  Quarter

  Birmingham MDC

  Great Britain

  1990

  Quarter 1

  3

  387

  Quarter 2

  12

  310

  Quarters 3

  4

  291

  Quarter 4

  12

  441

  1991

  Quarter 1

  6

  286

  Quarter 2

  5

  244

  Quarter 3

  4

  308

  Quarter 4

  9

  416

  1992

  Quarter 1

  7

  280

  Quarter 2

  5

  236

  Quarter 3

  3

  294

  Quarter 4

  6

  346

  1993

  Quarter 1

  3

  278

  505

  Road accidents fatalities to people aged 60 and over: Birmingham metropolitan district council and Great Britain 1990–1993

  Fatalities

  Calendar year

  Quarter

  Birmingham MDC

  Great Britain

  Quarter 2

  2

  221

  Quarter 3

  5

  224

  Quarter 4

  8

  388

  Baseline average (1981–85)

  Quarter 1

  350

  Quarter 2

  304

  Quarter 3

  341

  Quarter 4

  475

  1981–85 annual average

  1,470

  Transport Security Report
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the 1993–94 annual report of the Director and Co-ordinator of Transport Security. [21195]

  Mr. Norris
  I am today placing copies of this report in the Library of the House.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number and location of Coastguard, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency, Transport Research Laboratory, Vehicle Certification Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the UK over the same period. [20298]

  Mr. Norris
  No Coastguard, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency, Transport Research Laboratory, Vehicle Certification Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate offices have been closed or jobs lost or transferred from Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to the rest of the UK over the past five years; and no offices have been opened or jobs gained in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring to Scotland over the same period. Changes in the organisation of the Driving Standards Agency's work led to a reduction of 7.5 posts in the Department's traffic area office in Edinburgh and an increase of five posts in the agency's Newcastle office.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport, how many jobs he estimates will be lost as a consequence of the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory. [20562]

  Mr. Norris
  No jobs will be lost as a consequence of the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory. Staffing levels at the laboratory will continue to reflect management's view of the skills and resources required to meet the future demand for its services.
  506
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his intention to make the information memorandum on the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory publicly available; and what are the reasons for his decision on this matter. [20585]

  Mr. Norris
  It is not my right hon. Friend's intention to make the information memorandum on the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory publicly available, because it will contain commercially confidential information, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the sale process and the laboratory's competitive position.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his statement on the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory, what is the nature and duration of the guarantees of future work. [20584]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government intend to offer the Transport Research Laboratory contracts for future research work, subject to the delivery of high-quality, independent and impartial research at competitive prices. Details of the proposed guarantees will be included in the information memorandum which is expected to be available to interested parties by the end of June.

  Metropolitan Railway Grant
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the former metropolitan railway grant, now to form part of standard spending assessments, will be transparent. [29484]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend proposes to replace the current temporary arrangements with an enhancement of the standard spending assessment "bolt on" grant, with effect from 1996–97. That proposal has been set out in a consultation paper, which was circulated to the passenger transport executives in March.

  The final formula for the distribution of the "bolt on" between individual PTEs will be made available to the passenger transport authorities and the constituent metropolitan district councils. The "bolt on" allocated for each PTE will be published in the local government finance report. The allocation of the "bolt on" for each PTE to constituent metropolitan district councils will continue to be on the basis of total resident population. The Department will also be prepared to write to any individual constituent metropolitan district council to confirm its allocation of the "bolt on', and to state that it has resulted in a corresponding increase in its SSA, and therefore a corresponding increase in revenue support grant for that authority.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the additional deaths and serious injuries a year caused to pedestrians by crash bars fitted to vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [20469]

  Mr. Norris
  Experimental research has suggested that the increased fitting of bull bars could lead to 35 additional deaths and 350 additional serious injuries in the United Kingdom each year by 1996. We do not, however, yet have any accident-based evidence. Pedestrian injury accidents involving bull bars are currently being identified by the police for investigation by the Transport Research Laboratory. We will have a fuller picture when the reports
  507
  of these accidents have been analysed towards the end of this year.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include London city airport within the scope of the study that he announced recently on rail links between London's airports. [20485]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the earliest possible year under all conventional scenarios which they are now forecasting for Stansted airport to reach a passenger throughput of 8 million passengers per annum. [20820]

  Mr. Norris
  The last detailed advice produced by the CAA was CAP 570 which was published in 1990. This indicated that Stansted airport was likely to reach a throughput of 8 million passengers per annum some time between 1995 and 2000. The report of—RUCATSE—the runway capacity to serve the south-east working group, which was published in 1993 and in which the CAA played a major role, forecast that Stansted would reach a throughput of 8 million passengers per annum soon after the year 2000.

  Comparative Safety Assessments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he had made, prior to the accident in the Channel Islands on 17 April, of the comparative safety of(a) roll-on roll-off vessels, (b) catamarans and (c) the channel tunnel. [20023]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The safety of each mode of transport is assessed separately. While safety regimes take various forms, their common aim is to provide the highest practicable level of safety.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  New Forest Buckhounds
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the relationship between the staff of the New Forest Buckhounds and of the Forestry Commission; and what guidelines apply in respect of Forestry Commission staff accepting awards from hunt organisations. [19290]

  Mr. Jack
  All Forestry Commission staff are subject to the civil service rules of conduct.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review urgently the current policy where Forestry Commission staff, acting as harbourers for the New Forest Buckhounds, choose the deer to be hunted. [19289]

  Mr. Jack
  No. The commission's keeper chooses a deer which would otherwise have been culled as part of the commission's deer management programme.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will suspend the licence given to the New Forest Buckhounds to hunt deer pending an 508
  investigation into its activities and the involvement of Forestry Commission staff. [19291]

  Mr. Jack
  No.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take regarding the incident in the New Forest on 10 March where a deer was killed by the New Forest Buckhounds and regarding a further incident on the same day where eye witnesses saw a deer attacked and bitten by hounds before its death.[19288]

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission investigated this incident, concluded that the New Forest Buckhounds had failed to maintain the high standards required by its licence to hunt, and penalised it accordingly.

  Surplus Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by county, the amount of surplus milk thrown away in each month since January 1992. [19823]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number and location of Agricultural Development Advisory Service, Central Science Laboratory, Central Veterinary Laboratory, Intervention Board, Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate offices closed and the number of jobs lost or transferred as a result of agency work transferring from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will list the number and location of offices opened and jobs gained in Scotland as the result of agency work transferring to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom over the same period. [20300]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  ADAS, the Intervention Board, Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate have not operated from Scotland during the last five years. In this period, there have been no changes in office or job numbers at the Central Veterinary Laboratory and Central Science Laboratory sites in Scotland as a result of agency work transferring between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Payments
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England received environmentally sensitive area payments greater than(a) £100,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £5,000 or (e) £1,000 in the last year for which figures are available. [19999]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1994–95 English environmentally sensitive area payments to farmers in each band were as follows:

  Number

  Greater than £100,000

  0

  Greater than £50,000

  15

  Greater than £10,000

  382

  Greater than £5,000

  1,035

  Greater than £1,000

  3,382

  509
  The figures in each band are accumulative of those in the higher payment bands.

  In addition, 824 scheme participants received payments of less than £1,000.

  Lame Dairy Cows
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of lameness in the dairy herd, showing the number and proportion of dairy cows that were lame in(a) 1970, (b) 1975, (c) 1980 and (d) each year since 1990. [20035]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information, in the form requested, is not available.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agenda of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20494]

  Mr. Jack
  The annual reports and accounts of the following executive non-departmental public bodies, for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, are published:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Food from Britain

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Horticultural Research International

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew)

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Wine Standards Board of the Vinters' Company

  Legislation requires, in each case, that the annual report and accounts are published.

  Minutes and agendas of executive non-departmental bodies meetings are not published. There is no statutory requirement to do so.

  None of the executive non-departmental public bodies publishes a register of members' interests. There is no statutory requirement for such a register. However, details of those filling many posts are published, or are available at the time of appointment.

  Veal Exports
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on the legal entitlement of the Government to ban the veal export trade; when that advice was received and by whom it was supplied; and if he will publish that advice under the open government provisions.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has written to all members with a summary of the conclusions that emerge from the legal advice available to him. We believe that this is the most helpful way in which to explain the legal position. It is not usual for the details of legal advice to the Government to be made public.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has 510
  brought in the last five years; and if he will list the purposes and the costs. [19840]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 April 1995]: From records held centrally, it is not possible to calculate how many metres of mahogany or products containing it the Department has brought in the last five years, its purposes and costs. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Breast Test Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement to the Welsh Grand Committee on 4 April Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, column 3, in relation to the placing of Breast Test Wales and the artificial limb and appliance service, Wales into health trusts, if he will place a copy of the consultation process documentation in the Library. [19221]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for copies of the responses to consultation on DGM(95)4 and copies of DGM(95)51 which announced my decision to be placed in the Library of the House. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 February,Official Report, column 765, placing a copy of the response from the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit shire hall, Clwyd, to discuss(a) the county's budget and (b) the council's local education, authority budget; and if he will make a statement. [20340]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), met representatives of Clwyd county council on 21 February. The county council is responsible for setting its budget.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit the offices of Alyn and Deeside district council to discuss the authority's budget. [20341]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The district council is responsible for setting its budget.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the information for Wales corresponding to that contained in table 20 on page 52 of the Department of Health's departmental report, column 2812—March 1995. [19919]

  Mr. Richards
  The available information is given in the following table. Information on clinical psychology, dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy activity is not collected centrally.
  511

  Community health services activity statistics

  (Thousands)

  Number of first contacts1 2

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Health visiting

  n/a

  n/a

  420

  423

  394

  375

  Community nursing services (total)

  n/a

  n/a

  196

  188

  178

  190

  District nursing

  n/a

  n/a

  154

  147

  131

  142

  Community psychiatric nursing

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  24

  26

  24

  Community mental handicap nursing

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Other community nursing

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  15

  18

  19

  Chiropody services

  142

  153

  172

  164

  170

  165

  Community dental services

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  61

  77

  77

  1 Number of persons seen at least once in the year. This definition is different to that used in the Department of Health table which gave the number of episodes of care started in the year.

  2 Figures may be subject to revision following a data quality audit exercise currently under way.

  n/a Not available.

  Railway Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list projects on railways for which spending has been made by(a) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (b) the Welsh Development Agency for each of the last three available years, indicating the amount of spending and the totals for each agency; and if he will make a statement. [18908]

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £

  £

  £

  Refurbishment of Machynlleth station

  25,000

  —

  —

  Talybont station

  25,000

  —

  —

  Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury infrastructure improvements

  75,000

  —

  —

  Bus parking spaces at Machynlleth station

  —

  10,000

  —

  Preparation of a strategy for railways in mid-Wales after privatisation

  —

  —

  14,345

  Cambrian Lines (Marketing Campaign)

  —

  —

  5,000

  Feasibility study on line speed improvements between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  1,000

  Total

  125,000

  10,000

  20,345

  155,345

  Welsh Developmet Agency

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Treforest station—Phase II

  35,000

  —

  —

  Tirphil station

  10,000

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil (relocation of signal box)

  157,000

  —

  —

  Llanelli station (environmental improvements)

  3,000

  204,000

  79,000

  Templeton station (feasibility study)

  —

  6,400

  —

  Pensarn station

  —

  15,930

  2,650

  "Gateway Cardiff" (landscaping Queen Street)

  —

  14,325

  39,625

  512

  Welsh Development Agency

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  "Gateway Wales" (landscaping—Cardiff Central)

  —

  5,525

  9,670

  Rhyl Station (refurbishment)1

  —

  94,000

  875,000

  Caerphilly bus and rail station (feasibility study and design)1

  —

  400,000

  3,000

  Pontypool Station

  —

  23,910

  11,940

  Marketing campaigns (Cambrian and Conwy Valley lines)

  —

  10,000

  —

  Conwy Valley railway (environmental improvements)1

  —

  —

  34,465

  Holyhead station improvement1

  —

  —

  31,000

  Whitland station (survey and design)

  —

  —

  10,750

  Merthyr Tydfil (station relocation)

  —

  —

  600,000

  Railfreight studies (South Wales)

  —

  —

  64,915

  Total

  205,000

  774,090

  1,762,015

  2,741,105

  1 On-going projects.

  Most of these projects have been carried out jointly with other bodies.

  Surplus Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by county, the amounts of surplus milk thrown away in each month since January 1992. [19820]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available.

  Local Authority Councillors
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total numbers of councillors originally proposed by his Office for the whole of Wales following local government reorganisation; to what number this was subsequently increased and for what reasons; and what number he now proposes for the whole of Wales and for what reasons. [20372]
  513
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials had informal consultations with the local authority associations in summer 1993 on the basis of proposals for between 1,085 and 1,137 members to be elected at the first elections to the new authorities.

  My right hon. Friend decided to increase this number to 1,273, on the basis of a methodology devised by the Council of Welsh Districts which sought to preserve as much as possible of the existing district ward structure and levels of representation to provide an element of continuity for electors during the first years of the new authorities.

  My right hon. Friend has proposed no total figure for Wales in subsequent elections; it will be for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales to make proposals for optimum council sizes with regard to the directions which my right hon. Friend will issue to it in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20490]

  Mr. Redwood
  The answers to each point are as follows:(a) All—under statute, charter or other controlling documents. The report of work by the agricultural wages committees is included in the annual report of the agricultural wages board;
  (b) All except the Royal Commission on the ancient and historical monuments of Wales and the agricultural wages committees—under statute or charter;
  (c) None;
  (d) None;
  (e) At present the majority do not publish a register of members' interests. All are, however, in the process of adopting a code of practice based on the code of best practice for board members of public bodies published by Her Majesty's Treasury in June 1994, and will then publish or make available such a register.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20668]

  Mr. Redwood
  The answers to each point are as follows:(a) The agricultural wages committees, the Arts Council of Wales, the Cardiff Bay development coporation; the Countryside Council of Wales; the Development Board for Rural Wales; except for housing functions; Housing for Wales; the local government residuary body; the Sports Council for Wales; the Wales tourist board; and the Welsh Language Board. Jurisdiction extends to other NDPBs when their administrative actions are undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office or another Government Department;
  (b) The residuary body for Wales;
  (c) The Comptroller and Auditor General is the external auditor of all Welsh executive NDPBs except the Wales Youth
  514
  Agency, the residuary body for Wales, Housing for Wales and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, to whose books and papers he nevertheless has access a) under the National Audit Act 1983 for the purpose of carrying out examinations on value for money, and b) by agreement, and subject to prior consultation in each case with the Welsh Office, for the purpose of examining questions of regularity and propriety;
  (d) All are encouraged to adopt procedures under the code of access to government information;
  (e) All are required to identify, publish and report on progress against key performance measures in their annual report;
  (f) All are subject to the provisions of the citizens charter.

  Atmospheric Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many installations in Wales require consents from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for atmospheric emissions; and if he will list them. [20840]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Marine Discharges
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many installations in Wales require consents for marine discharges; and if he will list them. [20842]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All discharges into the marine environment require consents. Public registers of consents are maintained under part VIII of the Water Resources Act 1991; part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; and section 39 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and are available for inspection.

  Health Purchasing Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance note to NHS health purchasing authorities requiring them to have regard to the financial viability of the trusts from which they purchase services. [20868]

  Mr. Redwood
  No such guidance has been issued, as it is standard practice for health authorities to take account of the financial viability of their main providers when making decisions on the purchase of services.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many installations in Wales are covered by the large combustion plant directive; and if he will list them. [20839]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 13 installations subject to the large combustion plant directive in Wales. These are as follows:

  British Steel plc—Llanwern works

  British Steel plc—Shotton works, Clwyd

  British Steel plc—Port Talbot works

  Elf Oil Ltd.—Milford Haven refinery

  Gulf Oil Refining Ltd.—Milford Haven, Dyfed

  Monsanto plc—Newport, Gwent

  Monsanto plc—Ruabon works, Clwyd

  National Power plc—Usk power station

  515

  National Power plc—Aberthaw power station

  National Power plc—Pembroke Power Station

  Shotton Paper Co. Ltd.—Shotton, Clwyd

  St. Regis Paper Co. Ltd.—Sudbrook, Gwent

  Texaco Ltd.—Pembroke plant

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests; and whether this in each case is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20500]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board publishes annual reports which are laid before Parliament. Annual accounts are included in that report, as is information about the background of board members. The board does not publish the agendas or minutes of meetings of the board or its committees. There are statutory requirements for the board to publish information as to the discharge of its functions in relation to legal aid and for the Lord Chancellor to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and report of the auditors sent to him in accordance with requirements under the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open govnerment, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [10660]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board is not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission, but (a) and (c) to (f) all apply to the board.

  Morpeth County Court
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans there are to close the 516
  district offices of the Morpeth county court at Alnwick and Berwick. [19086]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. A. J. Beith, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about any plans to close the court offices at Alnwick and Berwick.
  As you may know, the Circuit Administrator and his Courts Administrators have responsibility for assessing the changing needs of users of the Court Service. One way of doing this is to conduct a survey of the customers who call at court offices. On the North Eastern Circuit, a survey of callers at Berwick, Alnwick and Blyth County Courts began in March and will continue for a period of two months. The survey is intended to identify the reason for attending the court office and the place from which the customer has travelled. The results of the survey will be analysed by the Courts Administrator's Office.
  I should explain that surveys of this type do not necessarily lead to a case being put to the Lord Chancellor for the closure of a court. Indeed, a similar survey conducted in these courts six years ago resulted in no further action being taken. However, where the results of such a survey indicate that consideration should be given to closing a court, the approval of the Lord Chancellor must be obtained for full public consultation to take place before a final decision is made by him. Careful account is, of course, taken of any representations made during the public consultation process. Closure is only considered where the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that neighbouring courts can offer an appropriate standard of service which meets the needs of court users.

  Pensions Appeal Tribunals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what resources he currently allocates to pensions appeal tribunal units. [19076]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The expenditure on the pensions appeal tribunals in the financial year 1995–96 is expected to be approximately £1.6 million. This figure includes the fees of judicial members and the salaries of the administrative staff, as well as other administrative costs.

  At present, there are 19 staff in post, and the following part-time judicial members:

  Legal Chairmen: 11

  Medical Members: 29

  Service Members: 25

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average waiting time for war pension appeals to be heard; what action he will take to reduce the delay period, and if he will make a statement. [19077]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At present, once the parties have indicated readiness to proceed, the pensions appeal tribunals are able to arrange a hearing, on average, within eight to nine months.

  Additional staff have been recruited for the pensions appeal tribunals to give administrative support. Also, extra judicial members have been appointed and additional tribunal sittings have been arranged to help reduce waiting times.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each
  517
  agency and 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. [19681]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, I have asked the chief executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office to reply direct. However, as the Public Trust Office and the Court Service are only recently established agencies, it has been agreed that the Department should take the lead in this answer. It has not been possible to separate information in relation to each area.

  The total hours of overtime worked for the 1992–93 financial year was 336,995 hours; for 1993–94 it was 222,821 hours; and for 1994–95 it was 219,947 hours.

  The total amount paid in overtime was £1,916,111, £1,376,050 and £1,352,297 respectively.

  The total time in days lost through sickness in 1992 was 132,855.5 days; and in 1993 was 153,966.4 days. No figures are available for 1994–95. It would be impossible to rely upon the accuracy of calculating the monetary equivalent of the total number of days lost to sickness as there are too many variables.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on leave I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your following three questions, notified on 5 April 1995.

  Number 237
  (a) The total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: 21,427 hours

  1993–94: 23,412 hours

  1994–95: 20,678 hours

  (b) The total amounts paid in overtime in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: £120,796.97

  1993–94: £138,637.12

  1994–95: £116,378.17

  (c) The total number of days lost through sick absence in each of the last three years is:

  1992: 6021

  1993: 5278

  1994: This figure is not yet available

  It is impossible to rely on the accuracy of calculating the monetary equivalent of the total days lost to sickness as there are too many variables.

  Number 239

  The Public Record Office has paid the following total amounts in subsistence allowances for travel in each of the last three years:

  (a) Within the United Kingdom

  (b) Outside the United Kingdom

  1992–93

  £63,519

  £8,961

  1993–94

  £72,848

  £7,712

  1994–95

  £75,192

  £3,484

  Number 240

  The Public Record Office has not paid any removal costs and associated expenses in the last three years.
  518
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning, over the last three years, the total hours worked and the amount paid in overtime by HM Land Registry and the total time and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness. I can provide the following information:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a) Total hours of overtime worked

  46,803

  16,299

  18,112

  (b) Total amount paid in overtime

  £683,000

  £220,000

  £340,000

  (c) Total time in days lost through sickness

  117,727

  114,427

  1—

  1The data on staff sickness is derived from the statistics compiled centrally by the HM Treasury and the Occupational Health Service Agency. The data for 1994 is not yet available. No figure has been supplied for the monetary equivalent of days lost as the number of variables involved in this calculation are too many to enable any reliance to be placed on its accuracy.

  There is no relationship between overtime worked and sickness absence in the Land Registry. It may nevertheless be helpful to relate the data provided above to the staffing levels for the Land Registry, indicated below:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Average staff in post

  9,648

  9,141

  8,717

  Equivalent in days

  2,450,592

  2,312,673

  2,196,684

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

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [19559]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, I have asked the chief executives of the Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office to reply direct. However, as the Court Service's inception as an agency did not take effect until 3 April this year, this answer deals with expenditure in the Court Service and the central Department.

  As departmental financial management systems do not distinguish between expenditure on travel and expenditure on subsistence or travel within and outside the United Kingdom, only overall expenditure figures can be given. Total expenditure on travel and subsistence in the 1992–93 financial year was £7,669,575; in 1993–94, £7,142,412. Final figures for 1994–95 are not yet available, but spend to end of February 1995 was £6,283,198.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on leave I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your following three questions, notified on 5 April 1995.
  519
  Number 237
  (a) The total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: 21,427 hours

  1993–94: 23,412 hours

  1994–95: 20,678 hours

  (b) The total amounts paid in overtime in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: £120,796.97

  1993–94: £138,637.12

  1994–95: £116,378.17

  (c) The total number of days lost through sick absence in each of the last three years is:

  1992: 6021

  1993: 5278

  1994: This figure is not yet available

  It is impossible to rely on the accuracy of calculating the monetary equivalent of the total days lost to sickness as there are too many variables.

  Number 239

  The Public Record Office has paid the following total amounts in subsistence allowances for travel in each of the last three years:

  (a) Within the United Kingdom

  (b) Outside the United Kingdom

  1992–93

  £63,519

  £8,961

  1993–94

  £72,848

  £7,712

  1994–95

  £75,192

  £3.484

  Number 240

  The Public Record Office has not paid any removal costs and associated expenses in the last three years.

  Letter from Julia Lomas to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary question, listed on 5 April 1995, regarding subsistence allowances for travel in the last three years (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom.

  The figures you require are as follows:

  (a) United Kingdom

  (b) Outside the United Kingdom

  £

  £

  1992–93

  16,744.01

  493.99

  1993–94

  18,753.40

  629.60

  1994–95

  20.601.53

  nil

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the total amount paid by HM Land Registry in subsistence allowances for travel within and outside the United Kingdom for the last three years. I can provide the following information:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  a) Travel within the UK

  521,159

  405,385

  445,926

  b) Travel outside the UK

  6,726

  3,780

  5,383

  520
  These statistics include the cost of travel as well as subsistence. The two can only be separated at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19656]

  Mr. John Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, I have asked the chief executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office to reply direct. However, as records of relocation expenses are kept centrally for staff of the central Department, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service, it has been agreed that the Department should take the lead in this answer. It has not been possible to separate this information in relation to each area.

  Total expenditure on cases where staff moved their homes for 1993–94 was £641,520; the average cost of payments in each case was £5,832. The three highest costs incurred in individual cases settled in this year, including payments made in previous years, were £89,130, £88,994 and £84,324. No information is available in relation to expenditure in 1992–93. In 1994–95, total expenditure was £384,656; the average cost of payments in each case was £3,495. the three highest costs involved in individual cases settled in this year, including payments in previous years, were £38,034, £30,540 and £30,103.

  There are also allowances payable with salary to staff who have been required to relocate to assist with increased travel and housing costs. No figures are available for these costs.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on leave I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your following three questions, notified on 5 April 1995.

  Number 237
  (a) The total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: 21,427 hours

  1993–94: 23,412 hours

  1994–95: 20,678 hours

  (b) The total amounts paid in overtime in each of the last three years is:

  1992–93: £120,796.97

  1993–94: £138,637.12

  1994–95: £116,378.17

  (c) The total number of days lost through sick absence in each of the last three years is:

  1992: 6021

  1993: 5278

  1994: This figure is not yet available

  521
  It is impossible to rely on the accuracy of calculating the monetary equivalent of the total days lost to sickness as there are too many variables.

  Number 239

  The Public Record Office has paid the following total amounts in subsistence allowances for travel in each of the last three years:

  (a) Within the United Kingdom

  (b) Outside the United Kingdom

  1992–93

  £63,519

  £8,961

  1993–94

  £72,848

  £7,712

  1994–95

  £75,192

  £3,484

  Number 240

  The Public Record Office has not paid any removal costs and associated expenses in the last three years.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. David Shaw, dated 25 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials in HM Land Registry during the last three years. I can provide the following information:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  a) Total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officieals

  1,464,919

  908,573

  510,278

  b) Highest claims in each year

  148,265

  122,971

  114,455

  c) Average claim

  27,411

  42,367

  40,144

  The period from 1992 to 1994 includes a number of exceptional cases arising from the difficulties encountered by staff transferring on compulsory terms to a new location just at the time of the sharp reduction in house prices and property activity following the peak price and activity of 1988–89. This created protracted problems in selling in a declining market.

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

  Criminal Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals in each of the past five years for which statistics are available against conviction for criminal offences in England and Wales have(a) been upheld, (b) been dismissed and (c) led to direction for a retrial; and, in the case of those appeals upheld, what information he has concerning the reasons for which the appeals were upheld. [19521]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 24 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the number of appeals against convictions for the past five years.
  522
  The following table provides statistics on the number of appeals against conviction in the Crown Court since 1990 which have been granted, dismissed or which led to a re-trial:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Granted

  256

  269

  299

  402

  351

  Dismissed

  337

  308

  370

  524

  577

  Re-trials

  3

  15

  12

  20

  51

  The reasons for which the appeals were granted are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines his Department has issued to magistrates courts committee regarding mergers of magistrates courts. [19734]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Guidance on the objectives which underlie amalgamation of magistrates courts committees is contained in the Lord Chancellor's speech of 10 February to the Magistrates Association, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of both Houses. My officials are discussing the mechanics of amalgamation individually with those committees currently contemplating amalgamation.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to promote the delivery of local justice and the traditional role of magistrates courts. [19735]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 strengthens and enhances the magistrates courts through its commitment to efficient and effective administration. For the first time, the powers and responsibilities of the various components of the administration of the magistrates courts are clearly enshrined in statute and the Department is working in partnership with the courts in the development of training specific to the needs of the magistracy and court staff. The role of the independent inspectorate in improving performance and disseminating good practice, and in assisting in raising service standards in line with the citizens charter cannot be underplayed. The courts will continue to be locally based and reflect the local community.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about proposals to merge magistrates courts. [19736]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is currently considering a formal request, under section 69 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to amalgamate two magistrates courts committees on a voluntary basis. Informal discussions have also taken place with representatives of several magistrates courts committees. Those discussions have explored both the question of amalgamation and alternatives to it which achieve the
  523
  same objectives. These discussions are continuing, and in order to pay proper respect to local sensitivities I do not propose to publicise those discussions until formal decisions have been made.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effects of magistrates courts committee mergers on the independence of the magistracy. [19737]
  524
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The amalgamation of magistrates courts committees will have no effect on the independence of the magistracy. The day-to-day administration of the magistrates courts in an amalgamated area will remain in the hands of a committee made up mostly, if not entirely, of magistrates. Section 30A of the Justice of the Peace Act 1979 provides added protection of the independence of justices' clerks and the staff of committees in relation to legal functions.

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

Cochlear Implants
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that all profoundly deaf people who can benefit from a cochlear implant, and who apply for one, receive one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we continue to remind health authorities that they are required to meet the cost of cochlear implants in all cases where that is the appropriate treatment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that cochlear implants are medical miracles which are now safe and established procedures which rescue totally deaf people from the world of silence? But is she aware that the Government's efforts to encourage DHAs to fund these implants are being rejected by a minority of health authorities, such as East Sussex, which will agree to fund only two children and no adults; or—even worse—Worcester, which refuses to fund any implants? Does she agree that that is unfortunate for the totally deaf people in those areas? Will she see what the Government can do to help?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I think that the noble Lord is a medical miracle, and also a man of tremendous courage who has shown us how one can overcome disabilities and still make a tremendous contribution to our society. The noble Lord will be aware that we have just had an evaluation of this operation carried out by the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research. We are about to publish that report. The report shows that the treatment is safe and effective for all but a small minority of patients. I suspect that some of the reluctance of health authorities to undertake this treatment has been because they have been waiting for that research. Now that it is about to be published, we expect them to follow our advice and to ensure that all those who need the operation have it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, why is not the Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, which is the national hospital for work on ears, one of the centres authorised to carry out this treatment? How many centres have the facilities to offer this treatment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with any new operation, it is important that we concentrate the expertise on particular areas where clinicians are anxious to do it and it is sufficiently well funded. In England, the following units carry out the operation: Birmingham; Cambridge; the Middlesex, London;
782
Manchester; Middlesbrough; Southampton; Nottingham; Bradford; Great Ormond Street and St. Mary's Paddington, London; and Sheffield. In Wales, the centres are in Cardiff and St. Asaph. In Scotland, they are situated in Edinburgh and Kilmarnock; and in Northern Ireland, Belfast.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my noble friend that cochlear implants are a remarkable example of team work between electronic wizardry and microsurgery? Will she anticipate some of the findings that will be reported in the research document that is coming out shortly? Can she give us any idea of the number of profoundly deaf people who are likely to benefit from cochlear implants? Will she tell us what is the cost of each implant?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we suspect that there are over 3,000 people (adults and children) who are likely to benefit from the operation. The cost of the operation for adults for the first year is £21,000 and for subsequent years £1,000. For children, in the first year it is £24,000 and for subsequent years £2,000.

Local Government Structure, Cheshire
2.42 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have ordered a further review of the structure of local government in Warrington and why they are considering whether the Halton district of Cheshire should also be reviewed.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the Local Government Commission recommended—and we have agreed—unitary status for many of the largest non-metropolitan towns and cities in England, including several former county boroughs. However, in other districts with apparently similar characteristics the commission recommended the status quo. We believe it is right to test the case for consistency by asking the commission to carry out further reviews of a small number of those districts, including Warrington. We have not yet decided whether to ask the commission also to carry out a further review of Halton.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he acknowledge that, when on 30th September 1993 the Secretary of State announced that the review of local government was to be speeded up—since when it seems to have slowed down quite a little—he said:
"The views of local people are of paramount importance"?
Do the Government accept that in a series of polls thereafter the great majority of the people of both Warrington and Halton made it plain that they were opposed to changing the present two-tier structure? Can the noble Earl assure me and, more to the point, those directly involved that, rather than imposing a solution which the Government may want, the new guidance to be given to the reconstituted commission will ensure that the views of local people continue to be regarded as paramount?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Government have not prejudged anything as regards Warrington, or Halton if that district is sent back for review. I can also assure him that the opinion of people who live in those areas will be important in respect of both the guidance which is to be issued, and which will be consulted on in May, and the commission itself. Another important issue must be the way in which a convenient and effective structure of local government is set up in those two places. All those issues can be balanced by the commission.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, is it not high time that we stopped fiddling round with local government boundaries and got on with the more important task of strengthening local government?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is because we wish to get on with the task of strengthening local government that the Local Government Commission was created. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has selected only a few districts for possible re-review on the basis of testing for consistency. He has not sought to refer any counties, because that would cause upheaval over wide areas.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I wonder how many noble Lords know that the district of Halton comprises the towns of Runcorn and Widnes. Do the Government fully appreciate that for centuries the area has been divided physically and culturally? Rather than reinforcing those divisions under a unitary structure, would it not be much better to see them happily contained within the existing two-tier structure, thus averting further uncertainty, delay, disruption and expense?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is because of specific issues, such as those outlined by the noble Lord, that the guidance which will be given to the commission in respect of the new review will concentrate on a new set of instructions. It is also as a result of specific issues, such as mentioned by the noble Lord, that the commission will re-address those areas. I stress again that there is no prejudgment on the part of the Government in seeking reconsideration of those districts.

Industrial Action: Lost Working Days
2.47 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many working days were lost through industrial action in the five-year periods ending 31st December 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the number of working days lost in labour disputes in the five-year periods ending 31st December 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994 were 58 million, 52 million, 20 million and 4 million respectively.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not that striking information result entirely from government policies? Is not the result of those policies to make United Kingdom industry increasingly competitive in the international market'? Does it not explain why our level of
784
unemployment is already below the average in the European Union and falling faster than that in any other country in the Union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend's inferences are right. The unemployment rate in this country is below the EU average. Only ourselves, Ireland and Denmark have a level of unemployment lower than that of a year ago. It is for that kind of reason that 40 per cent. of Japanese and US direct investment in the European Community is in our country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give the figures for the number of jobs lost in our manufacturing sector during the same period due to the Government's policies? Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost forever, which must have a bearing on the figures that he has quoted in respect of industrial disputes. Hundreds of thousands of people have not been in work and have had no opportunity to strike, even if they had wanted to.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the number of jobs in manufacturing is currently increasing. As regards the prosperity of this country, what matters is that we compete in the wider world in all sectors of the economy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the admirable results of the trade union legislation that has been introduced by the Conservative Government since 1979 are caused largely because that legislation gives powers to members of trade unions to refuse to be bossed around by trade union leaders and to take decisions for themselves after holding secret ballots?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is of course correct in ascribing the success of our policy to the enabling aspirations which we succeeded in giving to individual members of trade unions so that they could direct events in the direction they wanted.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should be rather less domestic in his explanations. What has happened to working days lost per 1,000 has happened in every OECD country. We have done slightly better because we have had a rather higher level of unemployment. Does the noble Lord not agree that the level of unemployment, rather than anything else, has reduced the number of strikes?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not believe that there is some kind of zero-sum relationship between those in work and those out of it. The key to the creation of jobs is international competitiveness. It is interesting to note that, for example, in 1984, over 27 million working days were lost due to strikes, while in 1994, just over 275,000 days were lost.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland has an excellent industrial relations record and that in the past five years, the average number of days lost per 1,000 employees in Northern Ireland was

785
24 compared with 37 in Great Britain? That information should be made available widely to industrialists who are considering setting up factories in the Province.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is correct as regards the message which comes from Northern Ireland and its industrial relations record. That is an excellent record and that, together with the other good changes which we hope will occur there, will, I very much hope, improve greatly the economic prospects for the Province.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that last year saw the lowest number of days lost through strikes since records were kept? Does he agree further that any impairment to our employment possibilities would be jeopardised if the Government were to accept the social chapter or, indeed, a minimum wage?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that the number of strikes is now running at its lowest level for more than 100 years. Equally, as regards the future benefits for this country, we believe that the imposition of a minimum wage and signing up to the principles and implementation of the policies of the social chapter would damage the economic prospects of the country and erode the job prospects of those who work here.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister reflect on the fact that curbing the excesses of trade unions is one thing, but crippling free trade unions in a democratic society is quite another? That may have very grave repercussions on our liberties in the future unless the point is watched very carefully by the Government. There are many examples from other countries and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is quite right that it is not appropriate to curb the rights of free trade unions. But we must strike a balance. During the legislative changes over the past 10 years, the Government have struck an appropriate balance, not least through the measures to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that, if one looks at the figures for the five years up to 1979—and the Minister quoted 58 million days lost through industrial action—approximately 1,700 million days were lost through unemployment? In the five years up to 1984, for which the Minister quoted a figure of 52 million days lost through industrial action, 3,500 million days were lost through unemployment. Those figures do not improve very much the further one goes into the period of Conservative government. When will the Government explain to their supporters and their Back-Benchers that it is far more important to consider ways of reducing unemployment rather than industrial action? Is the Minister aware that that industrial action is quite often caused not by trade union action but by bad management?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in an earlier reply, there is no direct zero-sum relationship between unemployment and strikes. In creating jobs, it is
786
crucial to provide opportunities to employ people. If the country has large numbers of people who are out of work when they could be in work, that helps to keep some of those who are unemployed out of work for longer. Our approach to job creation in this country is to have a flexible labour market which enables us to compete in the international world and thereby create real long-term jobs.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while it is entirely satisfactory that the number of days lost through industrial action has reduced so remarkably, would it not be worth while to carry out an independent survey of the various factors involved, because we must try to strive for that to continue in the future? While government legislation may have played a part, other factors may have been involved; for example, changes in management arrangements in this country. Will the Government consider holding an independent inquiry into that issue?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we always keep those matters under review but at present we do not feel that the case has been made for the formal independent inquiry which the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when my noble friend reads Hansard tomorrow morning, as I am sure he will, will he notice that the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Monkswell and others have all spoken as though there is a correlation between the increase in unemployment and the decrease in strikes? In fact, the reverse is true, since over a considerable period, the number of strikes has declined and during the past two years, unemployment has been falling.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has put his case partly on a comparative basis, will he tell the House which are the only two industrialised countries in western Europe whose statistics do not show a major downward trend of industrial conflict in the past 10 years? If the noble Lord has looked at recent research, he will be able to tell the House which are those two countries. Will the noble Lord note that they include industrialised countries which have increased the rights of workers and trade unions as well as this country which has driven down those standards to below the ILO international standard?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this country has seen a significant comparative improvement over the past decade. That is a matter for great satisfaction for all noble Lords on these Benches and, I hope, in the Government at large. We have not been condemned by the ILO and I very much regret any suggestion made that we have been so condemned.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister consider carefully the fact that employers in the private sector construction industry have complained about the dramatic reduction in money for investment in public sector housing through housing associations and local authorities? In the light of that, will the Minister reconsider his view that there is no connection between unemployment and strike levels? Surely, if thousands of

787
people in the construction industry are out of work because of government policy, they are therefore unable to strike. Many thousands of them are not even counted as unemployed because of the Government's constant tampering with the classification of unemployment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of questions but the suggestion that the problems of the construction industry are somehow related to the reform of industrial relations law and the incidence of strikes over the past few years is rather far-fetched.

St. Pancras Chambers
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the preservation and use of the Sir George Gilbert Scott masterpiece at St. Pancras.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government intend that St. Pancras Chambers should pass to the bidder selected to develop the Channel Tunnel rail link. The presence of the adjacent rail link terminus will necessitate limited work to the chambers, but it will also enhance the opportunity to bring the chambers back into use.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government have the full measure of the size of the problem as regards either the cost or who is likely to provide the money. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that this is a very genuine interrogatory—perhaps the most genuine that your Lordships have heard for many a long day? I certainly do not know the answer, and I suspect that neither does anyone else.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is a big building which needs a great deal of work. However, what we are sure about is the fact that we need a firm, commercial incentive for the work to be done. We believe that linking it with the railway station, bearing in mind the great commercial development that will occur with the new terminus, will provide the right environment for the building to be preserved and developed, and for a long-term use to be found for it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the building is listed as Grade I? Cannot its future be considered by the Millennium Commission in view of its great importance?
Viscount Goschen: Indeed, my Lords; the noble Lord is right. The building in question is Grade I listed. We believe that what is required is for a promoter to come forward with a scheme that will take that factor fully into consideration and who will work with English Heritage. As regards the parts of the building which are not directly
788
connected with the operational requirements of the terminus, the normal listing and planning procedures will apply.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share the widely held view that the true masterpiece of Sir George Gilbert Scott is the Albert Memorial? Will he confirm the very welcome news that, as I understand it, English Heritage and the Department of National Heritage have at last formulated a plan for the restoration of that remarkable edifice? Finally, can my noble friend tell us when that restoration will be complete?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend's requests drift slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall take note of my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, by his answers regarding the future of St. Pancras, does the Minister mean that the Government intend to muck about with it in exactly the same way as a previous Conservative Government did with Euston, which was the first great railway station in the world, truncating it, removing Doric arches and altogether wrecking it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if we do not "muck about with it" it will fall down. The building is not in a good state of repair. Works have been carried out. We need to find a proper, long-term use for the building. We understand that it is of enormous architectural importance. However, we believe that those principles will be adhered to. There is a special heritage agreement for those parts of the station which are directly connected with the terminus. But for those parts which are not directly connected with the terminus, as I said, the normal listing and planning procedures will apply. We must find a proper, long-term use for the building; and that is what we fully intend to do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that a principal part of the difficulty is that, for any occupational use of the building, the fire regulations require exceedingly expensive provision, a good deal of which would apply to the outside of the building? That means that any solution which will be aesthetically acceptable—and acceptable in safety terms—will be uncommercially expensive. Therefore, would that not be a reason for entertaining the earlier suggestion that a grant from the Millennium Fund might be appropriate?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As with many old and listed buildings, the question of fire regulations is most important. One only needs to look to the fact that much of the building is not utilised at present to see that point illustrated. In view of the fact that the building is thoroughly intertwined with the railway station, we feel that passing the building to a promoter will provide the best opportunity for it to have a long-term future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for tabling the Question? I have passed the building and, although I have very little knowledge of it, having looked at some of the work that

789
gave rise to the necessity for today's Question, I am now quite fascinated by it. I understand that the building can now be visited. I hope that I shall have an opportunity to do so fairly soon. I understand that the roof has now been secured, largely due to the work of Sir Bob Reid, and that at least the building from the roof point of view is watertight.
However, can the Minister assure us that, if the passenger terminal is ultimately placed in that building, there would still be a fair bit of the building left? Further, will the Minister keep the House and the country informed as regards the future of the building and assure us that neither the new tenants nor the Government will rush into over-quick decisions concerning a building of such importance?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can assure the House that the building will be preserved and enhanced by the plans that we have for it. There is no question whatever of the building being degraded. I am very glad that the noble Lord intends to visit the station. If the noble Lord has any difficulties in that respect, I am sure that he will be in touch with me and I shall endeavour to make arrangements for him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the building is next door to the new British Library, whenever that may be completed? Further, will the noble Viscount also bear in mind that, so long as it remains a copyright library, the British Library will and must continue to grow? Have any exploratory discussions with library authorities taken place on that subject?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I feel that the noble Earl's requests are totally wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I noticed that the British Library is next door to the railway station when I drove past the area this morning. If the noble Earl would care to table a Question on the issue of the British Library, either I or one of my noble friends will be pleased to answer it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister consider including a museum in the station as, for example, there is in the Musée D'Orsay in Paris, which has been such an immense success or one similar to that at Lyons station?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall consider very carefully my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of how much satisfaction his answer will give—if I understood him correctly—that there is no danger of the building being degraded? Further, does my noble friend agree in his heart of hearts that the hope that some railway operator will arise from somewhere with so much money to spare that he is able to take on the cost of rejuvenating the building is something of a pipedream?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I do not agree with my noble friend save to say that I am pleased that he has taken note of my comments that the building will not be degraded. It must be the case that, rather than spending huge amounts of money on keeping the building standing when it is not occupied, it is right to try to find a proper, commercial solution to the problem. We firmly believe
790
that providing the proper commercial environment, together with the fact that the building is so closely linked with the railway terminus, means that our proposals will constitute the best future for the building.

Fiftieth Anniversary of the End of World War II
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On 16th February, I made a Statement to your Lordships announcing proposals for a ceremony in Westminster Hall on Friday 5th May at 12 noon when both Houses will present humble Addresses to Her Majesty the Queen.
The Motion before the House today contains the terms of the Address proposed to be presented by this House. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will present the Address on behalf of the House and, in doing so, will make a short speech of his own. I am sure that the whole House will wish the event to be remembered as a great and enjoyable occasion.
On a more pedestrian note, it may be helpful if I mention briefly the arrangements for the ceremony. This House will meet at 11 o'clock on 5th May and, after Prayers, will formally adjourn to Westminster Hall. Those of your Lordships who are attending should make your own way to Westminster Hall, together with those members of your families who have tickets. I would hope that noble Lords are able to be in Westminster Hall by 11.30 a.m. Your Lordships will be able to sit with your accompanying family members, should you so desire.
In my Statement on 16th February, I said that it was proposed that there should be a reception in the Hall after the ceremony. However, in the event, so many Members of both Houses and their families have expressed a wish to attend that the whole of the Hall will be needed for seating. Therefore, sadly, it will not be possible to hold the reception after all. However, arrangements are being made for invited service representatives to be entertained at a small reception after the ceremony. I am sure your Lordships would wish that this House should have the opportunity of entertaining representatives of the organisations concerned.
Many of your Lordships fought in the last war. Many others of your Lordships lived through the war years although too young to join up. I hope, therefore, that those of your Lordships who are older than I am will forgive me if I underline what so many of you already know far better than I. I feel that the victory of 1945 represented, perhaps more than anything else, the victory of parliamentary government over tyranny. This year the people of this country will hold a number of events to commemorate the end of the war in Europe in May and the end of the war worldwide in August. I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is therefore entirely appropriate to begin this series of events with a

791
parliamentary occasion, and thereby to underline both the nature of our victory 50 years ago and the part that monarch and Parliament continue to play in our national life thanks to the sacrifices the nation made in what was after all the most terrible war in human history. I beg to move.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows—
"Most Gracious Sovereign, We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion to commemorate and celebrate with Your Majesty and Members of the House of Commons the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and our historic victory in conjunction with our allies over the Axis powers. We recall with gratitude six years of heroic effort and united steadfastness by the armed forces of the Crown, by the Merchant Navy and by unarmed civilians, by the inhabitants of these islands, by the Commonwealth and Empire and by our allies. We recall those who fought with courage and endurance for the causes of justice and freedom. We remember with sorrow and admiration those who gave their lives. We remember those who suffered. We give thanks also for the inspiring example given by His late Majesty King George VI and Her Majesty the Queen Mother in time of war.
"Since 1945 we have been blessed with a great measure of peace and spared the horrors of world war. We have seen the collapse of totalitarian regimes which for decades posed a threat to our continuing freedom and the peace of the world. For this we give heartfelt thanks to Almighty God. We pay tribute to the part which Your Majesty has played, throughout Your reign, in upholding and adorning our cherished tradition of Parliamentary government under the Crown. We pray that our successors may continue to enjoy the blessings of peace in freedom and just government, and we unite in saying 'God bless Your Majesty.'"—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving us some of the practical details of the ceremony that is to take place. As regards the Motion I am very happy indeed to welcome it on behalf of the Opposition from these Benches. It seems to me that there are three principal reasons why it is right for us to remember VE-Day and for us to commemorate this occasion.
First, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, the end of the European war represented a considerable military victory. After many years of fighting and after much travail the Allies succeeded in defeating a determined, efficient and dedicated enemy and it is right and fitting that we recall that feat of arms. Secondly, for us and for many of our allies the end of the war represented a triumph for democracy and for democratic ideals. It says much for this country that throughout the war Britain remained a functioning parliamentary democracy in which the government and Ministers were held publicly accountable and responsible. That, too, should be remembered and underlined.
792
Thirdly, 1945 gave the world the opportunity of devising institutions for international co-operation to try to ensure that such a war would not happen again. This year is also the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and that, too, we should recall. Finally, we should not forget that the war did not end in May 1945. In the Far East it continued until August and I for my part certainly read the proposed humble Address as encompassing both conflicts. It is right that we celebrate at this time but let us remember those for whom the ending of the war came somewhat later. It gives me great pleasure to support the Motion.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I think the previous time that we had a declaratory and commemorative Motion of this sort was just over seven years ago for the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution. Although a few Members of your Lordships' House owe their fame, their fortunes and their titles to that change of regime, it was, I suppose, a minority interest and not very closely within our collective memory. The events of 50 years ago are a very different matter. It must be the case—such is our age structure—that over half the Members of your Lordships' House probably have adult memories of those May days 50 years ago. I congratulate the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on producing a Motion which, if I may say so, is both compendious and appropriate.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House had the good sense to be born after VE-Day and even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was of relatively tender years at that date, so I suppose that I am the first Member of your Lordships' House with adult memories of 50 years ago to speak on the Motion although I am consoled from feeling too isolated on age grounds by the prospect that the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, will speak immediately after me.
I was briefly on leave in London in those May days and I remember thinking at the time, and also retrospectively, that the national mood was a curious intermingling of relief, exhaustion and hope. In a sense the relief has proved extremely well founded. We have after all enjoyed 50 years without any major war, which is almost unprecedented. I think that successive governments of this country can take a good deal of credit, through our being a key founder member of NATO—the most successful alliance in history—for the fact that that has been so. The hope may in some ways have turned out a little more disappointing—the hope certainly of finding a cure for our economic evils or a satisfactory role for Britain in the world. However, it is a considerable offset to that that we have had a secure half century of peace.
This is a Loyal Address and it is appropriate that in it we draw attention to the steadfastness of King George VI and his consort who is still brilliantly alive at the present time. Nearly the whole of the 50 years on which we look back today have been passed under the reign of the present Queen. That reign has been an unprecedented record of devoted service and

793
constitutional impeccability. My noble friends and I join with enthusiasm in the final sentence of the Motion and indeed in the Motion as a whole.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross Benches welcome the opportunity to commemorate a victory of parliamentary democracy over cruel Axis dictatorship. We join in the welcome so eloquently expressed this afternoon to commemorate and give thanks to the Armed Forces and the civilian population for all that they did, and also to remember with pride the unstinting example shown by His late Majesty, King George VI and by Her Majesty our beloved Queen Mother.
At the same time we should remember with gratitude the part played by the Commonwealth, which came to our aid at a particularly difficult time. In particular I would like to mention the Indian Army and the regiments who fought so gallantly in our defence in North Africa, Italy, the Middle East and southern Asia at a time when we would not have won the war without their help. It is right that Parliament should take the initiative to lead the nation in commemorating in both May and in August in order to celebrate the complete end of the Second World War.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those who sit on these Benches with what has been said and express my appreciation of the arrangements which have been made. I should like to make one comment. The Chief Rabbi has recently suggested that by keeping the past alive we can be sure, or can seek to be sure, of keeping our future free. I believe that a humble Address which draws attention to the cost of the peace achieved 50 years ago can remind us of the need for vigilant strengthening and protection of that peace which we now have for both the present and the future. Therefore, because memory can in that way be a guardian of liberty, those who sit on these Benches gladly support the Motion that the humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in order to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Whole House; and the Lords with White Staves were ordered to wait on Her Majesty to know when Her Majesty would be pleased to appoint to be attended with the said Address.

Business of the House: Debates, 26th April
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for tomorrow shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Donoughue set down for the same day to two and a half hours—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Jobseekers Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Availability for, and actively seeking, employment]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should tell the Committee that, if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41 or 42.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moves Amendment No. 40, I should like to suggest that it would be logical and helpful if we were to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 45 and 54. Each of those three amendments suggests leaving out certain words in Clause 6 on page 5, and the concepts of the three expressions which the noble Earl suggests should be left out overlap. I am not sure whether it is possible at this stage to suggest such a regrouping, but if it were possible I believe that it would be to the advantage of the Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As always, the Committee is in the hands of your Lordships. If it is desired to speak to those additional amendments at this time it is open to the Committee to seek to do so.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: I apologise for delaying the Committee. Because of the circumstances, it was not possible to have all my papers ready.
After a ceremony of such distinction it is difficult to avoid an impression of anticlimax. Yet, it is in the spirit of the humble Address which we have just carried that in the midst of unity there is division. That is part of our strength.
Amendment No. 40 proposes to leave out a provision that regulations may define the terms "actively seeking employment" and "available for employment". It is one of a series of amendments dealing with delegated powers in my name on the Marshalled List. I want to ask my usual five questions. Since this is the first amendment of the day I shall repeat them once.
First, why do the Government wish for a regulation-making power? Secondly, what do they propose to do with it? Thirdly, what else could be done

795
with it? Fourthly, what are the extreme limits of what could be done with it? And, fifthly, how can the House give or withhold its consent to what is done under it?
For once I am not concerned primarily with the question of whether this provision should be in regulations or in primary legislation. I am concerned with whether it should be in legislation at all or whether we are dealing with something which should more properly be the responsibility of the courts.
The essential point about the provisions relating to "available for employment" and "actively seeking work" is that they are tests of intention. If we are to discover it, intention has to be examined on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the circumstances at the time. In the case of mens rea, the courts are fully used to trying to work out intention. But to attempt to set out in legislation one outward and visible sign which shall be taken for proof of intention is very difficult indeed.
There is a classic example on our statute book. That example is an Act of 1571 immediately following the papal bull excommunicating and deposing Queen Elizabeth I. Certain Back-Bench Members in another place introduced a provision which was designed to make it treason to convert Her Majesty's subjects to the Roman Catholic Church. Lord Burghley considered that provision. He was not happy with using the single act as evidence of intention and procured the amendment of the provision to read that it was treason to withdraw Her Majesty's subjects from their allegiance or, for that intent, to convert them to Rome. He put the judgment of intention back where it belonged—to the courts, That, I respectfully suggest, is a precedent for the spirit in which these regulations should be approached.
As the Renton Committee observed (I have not had time to look out the quotation, but I am sure that the noble Lord remembers it and will confirm its approximate accuracy), it is not humanly possible to foresee in drafting all the circumstances which may possibly arise. Therefore, if we attempt to set out outward and visible tests of actively seeking employment and being available for employment, we simply shall not get it right.
That style of draftsmanship has quite a long history. To my knowledge, it goes back to a series of Catholic penitentiaries originating from 10th and 11th century Germany. The intention of those penitentiaries, just like the intention of this Bill, was to restrict discretion in order to ensure that the legislators' intention was observed. A fixed tariff of penance was laid down for each possible sin, very much on the principles of the mandatory life sentence. That led the draftsmen into a welter of detail of possible sins so lurid that the Sunday Sport would hesitate to print some of them.
To take one or two of the milder examples, there was a provision in those penitentiaries providing a specific penance for the offence of buggery with a swan. There is a long-standing disagreement among historians about whether we use those penitentiaries as evidence that such sins were once committed or whether we use them as a memorial to over-fussy draftsmanship. Looking at this Bill, I am inclined to opt for the second. But even
796
then the legislators of the penitentiaries did not get it all right. They provided for such an eventuality with a swan, but they never thought of providing for it with a goose.
So, if we try to define "actively seeking employment" and "available for employment" in regulation, we shall be changing those definitions all the time. We may often wish to withhold our consent from them. Whatever we do with them, those definitions certainly will not fit the circumstances of the individual case before the adjudication officer.
In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, the Government said that these are new powers in social security law. The expressions have never been defined in primary legislation, and there has never been an explicit power to define their meaning.
This is one case where our predecessors refrained from action for good reasons. I should like to know why the Department of Social Security does not propose to follow their example. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl posed a number of very good questions to the Government. I hope that we shall receive answers sometime today. However, on this part of the Bill we have another, different question. It goes, I suppose, rather against the spirit of what the noble Earl said. Our view is that the definition as to availability and activity should not be left to regulation. We believe that it should be on the face of the Bill, because people wish to know what activity means and what availability means. If the courts are to interpret, we want them to have some definition to interpret.
We know that there are many reasons why the Government would wish to leave the matter totally unspecified in the statute. Anyone who has read correspondence from various interested parties, such as the citizens advice bureaux, with much practical experience of the operation of these terms, will know that out there in the field people do not know what the terms mean. Those people are concerned that they receive different ideas of what activity and availability mean from different employment units or jobcentres. There are considerable anxieties that, when we go over to regulation, in practice these terms will be tightened up in all kinds of ways, and that that is what the provisions will entail.
We believe that we should start with a definition. If the Committee will bide its time for a moment, the next amendment provides a definition for consideration. However, in the meantime we agree with the noble Earl that it should not be done by regulation.
Lord Renton: First, I wish to make it clear that I support the Government's view that the word "actively"—it is used in Clause 1, and again in Clause 6(2) and (3)—is vital to the application of the principles of the Bill. However, having said that, I believe that both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, have made points which deserve our serious consideration.

797
We should consider carefully the question of secondary legislation in order to explain primary legislation. Secondary legislation can only have the intention of attempting to describe a number of hypothetical circumstances. When my noble friend replies to the discussion, he may be able to say that I am wrong about that. But it seems to me in the circumstances that that is all, fundamentally, that secondary legislation would do.
It is perfectly plain from experience and from the terms of the Bill that, in the practical circumstances in which people who look for work live, hypothetically circumstances can vary widely. Instead of relying upon secondary legislation in order to amplify the expression "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment", I should have thought it worth considering whether it would not be better to leave the matter to those who will have to decide those cases—mostly not the courts but those who have to decide appeals. If we are to go into hypothetical circumstances, we should bear in mind what has already gone before in the Bill. Clause 1(2) clearly sets out a number of practical circumstances. It seems to me to be rather difficult to elaborate those in great detail.
I had considered with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that the amendment could well be discussed with Amendments Nos. 45 and 54, also in the name of the noble Earl; we shall come to those amendments. However, I shall be obliged to refer to them for a moment in order to see whether the suggestion of secondary legislation is suitable in the particular circumstances bearing in mind those later provisions.
The next provision which the noble Earl wishes to leave out relates to Clause 6(2) (c), which states,
"A person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment".
I find that a very strange contradiction in terms. I have never come across a more complete contradiction in terms in any Bill in my 50 years' experience in Parliament. We shall no doubt have it explained to us. However, it makes one wonder whether secondary legislation would fit well into that particular, strange concept.
The next omission which the noble Earl suggests in Amendment No. 54 is to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). Subsection (3) deals with what the regulations may do. First, the regulations may,
"make provision with respect to the steps which a person is required to take in any week if he is to be regarded as actively seeking employment in that week".
I must say that I find that provision a little more sensible. But, again, the variation and the circumstances stretch the mind considerably. If regulations have to be made taking into account all possible steps, and no doubt some leaving out steps that are to be ignored, then we enter into a further complication.
I hope that I have said enough to make my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is always so diligent in these matters, feel on reflection that he will have to do a great deal to convince the Committee that we need
798
secondary legislation, and, if so, whether the way in which Clause 6 contemplates that it should be achieved is suitable.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like some help from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on the words "actively seeking employment". I was in Easterhouse in Glasgow not so long ago. There is no work anywhere in that area. If a man is actively to seek work he will have to go into Glasgow. That involves fares, the money for which he does not have. Realistically, what does "actively" mean? In principle, it is right that people should actively seek work, but it is not always practical.
Lord McCarthy: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness's remarks. The problem is that so far we have not known what "actively" means; it means different things in different places. I take it that it now means what is in the jobseeker's agreement which will specify what the poor person has to do. If people do not follow the processes they will not be regarded as actively seeking work.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Baroness has highlighted one of the problems which will be caused by writing the precise arrangements into the regulations which will be approved by Parliament. There will be geographical variations in what will be considered acceptable in terms of actively seeking work. In the circumstances mentioned by the noble Baroness, reading the local paper may be the best that can be done. In other circumstances, attending the local Jobcentre and looking at the advertisements there may reasonably be expected. However, to write that variation into regulations is neither feasible nor practical.
As a way of dealing with the situation, one would be willing to consider the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Let us have a broad definition of what Parliament means by "actively seeking work" and "being available for work". Then we could say: "Yes, that will be for interpretation by the officials in the department". That interpretation will be subject to legal challenge from time to time and, as a body of case law develops, there will be guidance from the courts on the interpretation of Parliament's will. That is a tried and tested way of conducting business in the country and running our social affairs. I commend it to the Committee because of the regional variations that have been highlighted as well as the variations over time of human activity and endeavour. What may be expected as reasonable for a person at one time may in a few months or years be considered unreasonable.
The other problem with the text of the Bill is the totally unreasonable element under Clause 6(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d). That would give Ministers the power to say that black is white and white is black. We should be careful in Parliament about even hinting that Ministers should have that power. It is totally unreasonable to suggest that Ministers should aspire to such powers.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister replies, I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the Minister and anyone else who may wish to speak to take up the point about

799
groupings. I apologise for not doing so straightaway. In the course of changing places at the end of the humble Address, I had not finished unpacking my papers.
Amendment No. 45 has many points of overlap with Amendment No. 40, but it makes one specific point dealing with compulsory training which I would prefer to keep ungrouped. Amendment No. 54 concerns behaviour and appearance, but Amendment No. 50, mentioned by the noble Lord, concerns next steps. I am happy for Amendment No. 50 to be grouped with this amendment, so if anyone else wishes to speak to it, they should take that chance now.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as regards places where no work is available. I have a case in my briefing papers of a person required to make five job applications every week. He was disentitled to benefit because there were not five jobs available in the area in the relevant week.
Under Amendment No. 50 and the next steps, although prima facie it looks as though it is good draftsmanship, we may run into the risk of total enumeration in drafting. To touch briefly on Amendment No. 61, we may also be leaving out actions which people might take in order to seek work which regulations have not remembered to specify—of which there may he many ples. I accept the grouping in relation to Amendment No. 50. However, I would prefer to say a brief word later on Amendment No. 45. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his remarks which were extremely interesting. I listened to them carefully and will read them carefully.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord said that he was speaking to Amendment No. 50 which we wish to support. It leaves out lines 24 to 26 under which the Bill takes regulatory power to specify the steps which must be taken in any one week if someone is to he thought to be actively seeking work. It is a typical example of over-regulation, over-precision. It would give considerable power to the regulator, whoever it may be. Although the regulations may not be available to the unemployed, they will be available in the adjudicator's handbook and to those who work in employment exchanges. The wording is too precise and complicated and we support its removal from the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I suggest that "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" are the type of terms which, by tradition, are defined in primary legislation. It is taking matters too far along the line of delegated legislation to leave the terms to subsidiary legislation in such circumstances.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise for rising a second time, but I wish to make another point born of my personal experience. Three men came to me to ask whether they could run a children's nursery because all their wives were working and they were doing nothing. I made arrangements for them to run the nursery, first, by giving them training and, secondly, by allowing them to run it in a health centre. Then their social security
800
was withdrawn because they were not actively seeking work. Each of them went to the Jobcentre once a day, but there was no point in actively seeking work because there was none. Cowley works had just closed, as we all know. I am sorry I did not make that point earlier.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and also follow the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. These matters are fundamental to the Bill and we were told that when considering Clause 1. It is difficult for us to reach a conclusion without the guidance of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which will no doubt have a view. We ought to know that view before we reach a decision.
I am strongly in favour of asking the Government to make an exception over the delegated powers which they seek to put in the Bill in favour of at least incorporating the amendments into primary legislation. As we are without the substantive report of the Select Committee, perhaps we should not take that step until we receive that report and then we shall be able to do something at Report stage. The amendments arc important and should not be in subordinate legislation.
Lord Inglewood: I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his extremely erudite and complete opening comments in support of his amendment. I shall also endeavour to take Amendment No. 50 at the same time, as I understand that is the wish of the Committee.
As I understand the noble Earl's proposition, he suggested that the key test that should be applied to the availability and "actively seeking work" criteria is essentially one of mens rea. One has to look into the minds of the persons concerned. That is the test by which you can define whether or not that is being done. If you do that, it would then seem to follow that cases of dispute will inevitably lead to adjudication and appeals, and to the courts. I understand the logic behind the noble Earl's thinking, although I suspect that it falls foul of the problems that were experienced in the 1930s, when the test was one of "genuinely seeking work" and the problem was how you identified that.
I should have begun my remarks by reiterating the comment that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Obviously, we are dealing with this matter in the absence of the committee's memorandum and that fact is very relevant to our debate.
The difficulty, in theoretical terms, about the route down which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is going is that the purpose of this legislation is to try to operate the social security system. I suspect that that is why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, appeared to take a slightly different tack. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, his point was that it is crucial to have a definite, cast-iron, all-embracing, all-encompassing definition on the face of the Bill.
That point in turn contrasted slightly with what my noble friend Lord Renton said. He appreciated that there is a need to target and fine-tune in the context of this kind of legislation. Inevitably one is talking in many instances about what my noble friend described as hypothetical circumstances. Probably the best way to

801
deal with the matter is to leave it to those on the ground who actually decide. Again, I understand the thinking behind that point. But it makes it difficult for there to be the necessary degree of certainty that is so important in our legislation, particularly when we are referring to matters of money and so on. It would leave considerable discretion in the hands of people and, while they will no doubt exercise that discretion entirely honourably, it will be difficult for those who are affected to know where they stand without going through the entire procedure.
Finally, in considering the debate about how one should approach this particular problem, I hear the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The point was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. My noble friend said that the right place for the definitions is on the face of the Bill.
In this regard, the Government face a very real problem. We are talking about the very wide-scale disbursement of public money to people in a wide variety of different circumstances. That money has been collected from the taxpayer and is to be given to people who, under the definitions that we are discussing, are considered to have an entitlement. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us and the Benches opposite. In the modern world we have to try to target the way in which these resources are disbursed in order to run the social security system effectively and in the public interest. I am extremely conscious of the very considerable experience that was represented behind the comments that were made, and I wanted to put it in that form. That is the approach that we have adopted in trying to deal with this matter.
Lord McCarthy: I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. He says that the court is uncertain, and the regulations are uncertain. Surely that is the case for putting definitions on the face of the Bill. The point is not that the Bill should merely tell the Government what some of the rules are (not cast-iron rules) but that it should tell the unemployed, the associations and the CABs what the rules are. They would have a framework within which they could tell people they would work. What is wrong with that?
Lord Inglewood: So far as it goes, nothing is wrong with that. However, if we are to target effectively, it will inevitably be necessary to have quite clearly defined targets towards which the resources will be directed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for intervening. If we want to define the matter clearly, let us put it on the face of the Bill and let us then have an objective discussion across the Floor of the Chamber as to how the legislation operates in practice. What is the objection to the traditional position of putting a definition of this sort on the face of the Bill? I accept what my noble friend the Minister said, but what is his objection to my proposal?
Lord Inglewood: We can give an overall definition; but the detail of the targeting is, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, the important matter. If circumstances change, we in turn would want to change. In Clause 33 special provisions are in place to try to make quite sure
802
that Parliament exercises a considerably greater degree of scrutiny in practice over these matters than may ordinarily have been the case in the past.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I am simply baffled by his use of the word "targeting" in this context. We are not talking here about money or numbers. We are talking about a definition, so that people know what the assumptions are, on the face of the Bill, as to what "actively seeking work" means. There is nothing to stop the Government amplifying any definition subsequently by regulation. That may indeed be appropriate. This amendment would turn what is at the moment a framework Bill into a Bill in relation to which at least those whom it affects will know where they stand. Secondly, what on earth has the word "targeting" to do with anything? If the Minister is saying that he does not want definitions on the face of the Bill because he may want to pursue particular groups as the spirit moves after the event, then Heaven defend us!
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness has made much of my case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister accept my conclusion that the definition should be on the face of the Bill?
Lord Inglewood: We have discussed this matter in very great detail. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I described what the Government feel is appropriate in these circumstances.
The amendments that the noble Earl proposed would have the effect of removing the power to define in regulations the main labour market conditions for receipt of JSA; namely, being available for and actively seeking employment. This would be to the detriment of the benefit. JSA provides the opportunity to define the availability condition in a fuller, clearer way than has hitherto been possible.
At present, as Members of the Committee will have found if they have studied regulations for unemployment benefit and income support, availability tends to be defined only indirectly. It is important that people have a clear understanding of the conditions on which their entitlement to jobseeker's allowance depends. They must be available for employment and seek employment actively. These are essential elements of our policy to encourage people back into work.
Under JSA, the availability and active seeking conditions will be defined in regulation rather than in primary legislation, following existing practice. This gives us the flexibility to adjust the benefit rules over time to reflect the realities of the labour market, and enables us better to help jobseekers to get back to work.
We rely on secondary legislation in social security legislation because of the degree of detail in specifying entitlement, and the need to incorporate sensitivity to the labour market and to maintain coherence with changes in other benefits. I reassure the Committee that the affirmative procedure will apply initially to all of the regulations. After that, regulations will be subject to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee.

803
As we have already made clear in the JSA White Paper, there will be a new definition of "available for employment" under JSA. Jobseekers will be required to be available for any work which they can reasonably be expected to do, usually for a minimum of 40 hours a week. Of course, people will continue to look for and obtain jobs across the full range of hours that are currently worked in our flexible labour market. That test ensures that they do not unnecessarily close off opportunities.
The definition of "availability" will allow people with disabilities to restrict their availability in accordance with their mental and physical condition. For the first time it will explicitly provide for carers to restrict their availability and it will enable people to restrict their availability on religious or conscientious grounds.
So far as concerns the definition of "actively seeking" I am happy to give the Committee an indication of our intentions. JSA regulations will carry forward from the current regulations the principle that a jobseeker must take steps to afford himself his "best prospects" of finding employment, subject to a test of reasonableness. As at present, regulations will also include a list of circumstances which are to be taken into account when assessing whether a jobseeker has met that condition. We intend that the list, as now, will include the jobseeker's skills and qualifications and the condition of the labour market. It will also reflect his progress to date in finding work.
We shall also carry forward the principle that taking one step in a week on one occasion is not normally sufficient. As at present, the list of steps will include actual job search: applying for jobs, registering with an agency, and so on. But in the JSA regulations we shall be extending the list to include actions which improve a jobseeker's employability, such as drawing up a CV, researching potential employers and alternative occupations, obtaining references, seeing a specialist adviser and attending short job-related courses, normally of no longer than two weeks in one year. That change is designed specifically to allow each jobseeker to focus on the actions that provide him with his best chances of getting work.
In his opening remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave notice that he would ask five questions in respect of the delegated powers. I hope that he will feel that I have answered the first two of those questions in the comments I have already made.
With regard to the third question—what else could be done by the vires contained?—I do not believe that it would be useful to speculate on how a future government of any persuasion might wish to use the power. I can only answer for our current plans and intentions. I believe that there are already adequate safeguards within the parliamentary system to deal with the possible abuse of powers contained in primary legislation. All secondary legislation must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which in particular has the power to report to the House subordinate legislation where "it appears to make
804
unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made." It also reports provisions which exceed the powers of enabling statutes.
In the final instance, I believe that the courts are fully capable of handling genuine abuses of power. In addition to the JCSI, most secondary legislation relating to social security will be subject to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee which may, following any necessary consultation, make a report to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State then proceeds with the regulations he must lay before the House a copy of the report. That scrutiny will take effect for regulations laid more than six months after the enabling power commenced. We have already set out in the Jobseekers Bill that most regulations laid before that date, when jobseeker's allowance is first payable, will be subject to the affirmative resolution.
Perhaps I may briefly turn to Amendment No. 50. We believe that it is essential that jobseekers should keep in touch with the labour market. That is why the requirement to seek work actively is a condition to entitlement to JSA. The rules will be contained in regulations under Clause 6. Clause 6(3) (a) and (b) elaborate on our intentions for the regulations which will be drawn up under the clause. Amendment No. 50 seeks to remove that clarification.
The Committee may find it helpful to have an indication of our intentions. JSA regulations will carry forward from the current regulations the principle that a jobseeker must take steps to afford himself his "best prospects" of finding employment, subject to a test of reasonableness. All decisions on actively seeking employment will be subject to independent adjudication. As at present, regulations under Clause 6 will also include a list of circumstances which are to be taken into account when assessing whether a jobseeker has met the condition.
We intend that the list, as now, among other things will include the jobseeker's skills and qualifications and the condition of the labour market. It will also reflect his progress to date in finding work.
We shall also carry forward the principle that taking one step in a week on one occasion is not normally sufficient. As at present, the list of steps will include actual job search: applying for jobs, registering with an agency and so on. But in the JSA regulations we shall be extending the list to include actions which improve a jobseeker's employability, such as drawing up a CV or seeing a specialist adviser. That provision is designed specifically to allow each jobseeker to focus on the actions that provide him with his best chances of getting work.
I believe that the proposals that I have outlined represent the necessary balanced and reasonable approach. We believe that, in contrast, Amendment No. 50 is designed to undermine the actively seeking employment condition. Therefore I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. He made a number of statements after he said what the Government had in mind before he turned to the questions of the noble Earl,

805
Lord Russell, and before he went on to answer Amendment No. 50. My query is: was this new matter? Was this a new policy that he gave us or was he just rehashing and re-reading bits of the White Paper? Is there something new that we should read with great care?
Lord Inglewood: There is nothing new. It is all contained in the memorandum.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend finally sits down, can he say whether there is any precedent in any previous legislation for providing that words in the Bill shall,
"have such meaning as may be prescribed"?
Are there any precedents for that, or is it a new expedient?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, this is not the first time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Can the noble Lord say where the precedent is to be found?
Lord Inglewood: In order to give chapter and verse, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will my noble friend the Minister possibly consider not opposing—or not having a Division—on the amendment at this stage? I find it difficult to support the amendment as it stands. I wish to see these terms enshrined in primary legislation for the reasons I gave briefly. The amendment does not in fact achieve that result. This is a matter of some importance. It transcends the actual importance of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend can possibly reflect on the matter and avoid a Division at this stage.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Earl informs the Committee of his attitude, I wonder whether he and indeed the whole of the Committee will bear in mind that my noble friend Lord Inglewood has given us a very long and detailed statement which he asks us to consider on the question of whether or not there should be secondary legislation to fulfil the Government's intention.
As I listened to my noble friend, I concentrated as hard as I could, but I found it impossible to reach a conclusion. Therefore, I think that perhaps we might agree on both sides of the Committee, including my noble friend, not to take a decision on this matter now but give ourselves time to study carefully and in detail what my noble friend said and if necessary come back at Report stage.
Lord Shepherd: I am a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. On behalf of my colleagues on that committee, I apologise to this Committee. For circumstances which I think are reasonably well known, we were not able to produce very much more than what is available as an interim report to the Chamber. Since becoming a member of the committee—I have been there from the outset—I have become more and more conscious of the fact that regulations impinge more upon the ordinary citizens of the country than does primary legislation. Yet we spend hours, if not days, on primary legislation and take a cursory interest in regulations and orders.
806
We also have a convention in this Chamber that we do not vote against orders. I know that we adapted a new system—it was when Conservative Peers were on this side of the Chamber and I was on the other side—by tabling resolutions to an order. That left it open to the Government to proceed, but it was a clear indication that we were only prepared to allow the orders to go through provided the Secretary of State had regard to what was moved by your Lordships in the resolution.
I do not remember a Bill of this nature in some 40 years. Primary legislation has a role and delegated legislation is an essential part of it, But delegated legislation should be broadly the implementation of that which is contained in primary legislation. Therefore, how does one deal with it in this Chamber? This Bill is basically a skeleton Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to it as a foundation Bill, but they mean the same thing. We have little idea of what the end product will be of the powers being given. We have had a debate this afternoon in terms of what is "actively seeking employment". There is no real definition, even from what I heard this afternoon, from anyone as to what is active pursuit. The noble Baroness referred to her difficulties, as did my noble friend Lord McCarthy. I am sure that if we were in our 'forties and 'fifties and lost our jobs with Shell, we would have difficulty in finding suitable employment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I would.
Lord Shepherd: I am sure the noble and learned Lord could take on almost any responsibility and do it most effectively. But I come back to this fact. If this Bill were to proceed as it stands, we would need to look at the procedures for examining orders and regulations in a great deal more depth than we now do. I do not see that as a procedure which should apply to all delegated regulations. But in a Bill of this nature Parliament should have a closer look at what is being proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the joint committee on delegated statutory instruments possesses certain powers, but those powers are extraordinarily limited. It can consider the vires and the extent of the powers being exercised. But when one has, as it appears in the Bill, powers being taken with no limits either at the beginning or at the end, I do not know how the committee could ever seek a judgment. Therefore, if the Government wish to pursue this Bill in its present form—I would hope that they would take note of the pleas from many quarters of this Committee—then they should make some effort, despite the difficulties which I can understand, of putting more on to the face of the Bill. That would form a synergy with the delegated powers committee. They would be providing a great service to Parliament and to the people affected by the legislation.
This matter will need to be considered between now and Report stage. I do not know how much the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will be able to contribute. The size of the task is immense. We are limited in resources as to what we can propose as alternatives other than making broad-brush recommendations. It is not within the powers of this Committee or your Lordships at Report stage to bring

807
forward anything but amendments which only touch the surface of the problem. The real problem lies in the way in which the Bill is constructed. If the Government, between now and Report, make an earnest endeavour to put on to the face of the Bill a clearly stated case, then the orders will fall naturally with it. If they do not do that, this Chamber and another place—I can only speak for this Chamber—will have to look at the way in which orders are considered and finally approved by us.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to whom we listen with care as a former Leader of the House and a member of the committee which looks into these matters. As I understand it, in giving advice to the Committee he said that no delegated regulation should differ from the general scope as set out in primary legislation. The noble Lord indicates that that was the message he wanted to convey. But that does not allow the Committee and the Chamber to work as effectively as it must.
Primary legislation can only take into account circumstances of which Parliament is aware at the time it enacts the primary legislation. The value—and the only value as I see it—of delegated regulations is that they can take into account at a later stage new circumstances which may have arisen after the primary legislation was put in place. On this occasion the opposite of what the noble Lord recommended should be the case. My noble friend Lady Faithfull gave two examples. It may well be that more examples of that sort will show themselves. In the light of that, there should be power to table regulations which will amend the primary legislation to meet the special needs of the examples we have just given. For that reason, I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord.
Lord Shepherd: I thought that for once the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was on my side of the argument, but then he rather spoilt it. Will he agree with this? It is important that the first regulation is the right one. Later on we can improve by flexibility, by changes of what was the first regulation; but it is the first regulation that is important, particularly when one is establishing, as we arc now discussing, a specific issue. If the noble Lord is willing to go along with that, for once we shall be in agreement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend be able—if he cannot do it now, at any rate at the next stage—to let your Lordships know whether there is any precedent in previous legislation for such a wide provision as that contained in this clause? The words,
"have such meaning as may be prescribed",
are extremely wide. I do not recall—I am not an expert in these matters—any other statute where that provision is in such wide terms. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether that is so and which statute contains it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the sake of the record, as I have been involved in this argument, I wish
808
to state that I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and respectfully wholly disagree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I can respond to one or two of the points raised, particularly to that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have in my hand a copy of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which gives an example of this provision. It is not quite good enough for the proposition about which we were talking, but I shall come back to the Chamber with other examples because I am confidently advised that they exist elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made some extremely important points, and I am grateful to them for their remarks. Clearly this matter is of importance and is close, and properly close, to a number of your Lordships' hearts. We shall certainly consider extremely carefully everything that has been said here this afternoon on the subject. But I reiterate the Government's position that the present balance between primary legislation and regulations is roughly right in what we are proposing for the JSA.
Earl Russell: This debate has shown the House absolutely at its best. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is right that this goes to the heart of the way the Bill has been constructed. Therefore, though the debate has taken time, I hope that before we are through it may turn out to have saved us time. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is also right that the issue goes far beyond the scope of the Bill.
It had never been my intention to divide on the amendment today. We need to wait for the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which, as I have said before, has been delayed through no fault of its own. But had it been my intention to divide, the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, and the final concluding remarks of the Minister would have been enough to dissuade me.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, argued for placing the terms on the face of the Bill. He knows perfectly well that that is a type of argument for which I am normally an enthusiast. However, it seems to me to be a little more tricky than that. The basic principles here are placed on the face of the Bill. They are in Clause 1(2)—the claimant must be available for employment and actively seeking employment. But what we have here in all these regulations is an attempt to prescribe what shall be taken for evidence of being available for employment and actively seeking employment. The passage that seems to bear on this is the passage in the Renton Report, which I quoted last Thursday and shall not quote again, about attempting by drafting to guide the court's definition of intention. It is over-detailed draftsmanship. That is why I did not go down the road outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It tempts me very much, but I could not see a way along it on this occasion.
I was particularly grateful to the Minister for the care he took to think through the issues raised by the amendment. I understand the difficulties of a test of

809
"genuinely seeking work", but that is what we have with the way a lot of the actively seeking work tests are conducted at present. I also entirely take his point about what he called "the necessary degree of certainty". I appreciate what it does to someone to be deprived of something that he thought was an entitlement. However, if the Minister looks at the arguments of the Renton Committee, he will consider amending the words "the necessary degree of certainty" to the words "the desirable degree of certainty". Attempting to achieve certainty by more and more careful draftsmanship, however desirable it may be, is at the end of the day a will-o'-the-wisp.
The Minister will, I hope, now accept that the amendment does not remove from the Bill the test of actively seeking employment or of being available for employment. It merely avoids a whole lot of tests of the intention being set out in regulations, which I think is not the best place for them. Clearly, we all have a great deal more thinking to do on all sides of the Chamber before we get this right. I hope that there will be more discussion of it inside and outside the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 12 and insert ("a person is available for employment if he is willing to do any work which he can reasonably be expected to do; and a person is actively seeking employment if he is taking such steps which are reasonable in his case as offering the best prospects of obtaining work and in this section "work" means employment either as an employed earner or as a self-employed earner and these terms shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Benefits Act).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 61. Members of the Committee who are aware of the grouping will know that Amendment No. 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has also been grouped. I am quite happy that that should be the case. If the noble Earl wishes in due course to press it to a Division I shall support him. However, I shall not speak to that amendment because he will be able to do that much better than I can. I am speaking in the first instance to Amendment No. 42 and I shall come in a moment to Amendment No. 61.
Here we are sticking out our neck. After having said that we believe that there should be something on the face of the Bill, we felt that we ought to put something on the face of the Bill. It is up to the Government to say whether they like it. It is a cock-shy. I am quite sure that things can be found to be wrong with it. Things can be found to be wrong with any definition. But it is the first attempt to say the kind of thing which we feel could be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, at page 5, line 11, we say leave out from ("Act") to end of line 12 and insert our definition:
"a person is available for employment if he is willing to do any work which he can reasonably be expected to do".
That is the definition of "available". The definition goes on:
"and a person is actively seeking employment if he is taking such steps which are reasonable in his case as offering the best prospects of obtaining work".
810
It goes on to define what "work" shall mean.
In other words, we are trying to introduce a concept of reasonability. We are suggesting that it is for the employment officer to say whether the jobs which are placed before the unemployed person are reasonable, bearing in mind the person's abilities, experience and skills. We are saying that the employment officer should specify the steps that are to be taken and the number of times which the individual has to attend per week in order to prove that he is actively seeking work—the number of ways in which he has to come back with his employment book, signed by employers. All these points come out in the evidence from the CABs. These things should be reasonable.
This concept is not unknown in legislation. Whenever we want to try to put in some kind of balance so that the argument can go one way or the other we use the term "reasonability". It is particularly useful, we would suggest, to the unemployed person if he considers that what he is being asked to do in terms of availability or activity is too much because he can then go out to the adjudication officer and say, "I believe that what was being asked of me was unreasonable". It then becomes a matter for the adjudication officer, who knows in broad terms what he has to take into account, to decide whether something is reasonable. That is the objective of Amendment No. 42. I shall say no more about it, but I shall wait to hear what the Minister says.
Amendment No. 61 states:
"make provision with regard to the steps which a person has taken which are in addition to or in place of one or more of those set out in his jobseeker's agreement to constitute evidence that he is actively seeking employment".
What that means, or what we hope it means, is this. We know that the Bill and the White Paper—and, from what we have been told, the regulations—contain a great deal about steps which a person has to take. We understand that the object will be that those steps will now be embodied in a jobseeker's agreement. That agreement will have a kind of quasi-legal status. Anything which is outside those steps or does not fulfil those steps will constitute a breach of that agreement and therefore the denial of benefit. We are saying—we are not asking for this on the face of the Bill—that the regulations should take on the problem and in particular seek to deal with the problem of the steps which a person has taken which are suddenly in addition to or in place of one or more of those set out in his jobseeker's agreement.
Therefore, although it is not on the face of the Bill, the jobseeker has some idea from the regulations as to whether something additional and different is being asked of him outside the scope of the jobseeker's agreement. Further, if he does something outside the scope of the specific jobseeker's agreement, he has some kind of defence in the regulations by saying, "That kind of thing was anticipated. I could not go to the office three times this week because I was ill", or "I had a child to look after", or "I had to go on a training course." Those are the kind of steps which can set aside the provisions of a particular jobseeker's agreement. We want something in regulations which tells the unemployed person what he has to expect.
These are two primary attempts to introduce something into the legislation to give the unfortunate unemployed person some guidance as to what is expected of him or her. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I support Amendments Nos. 42, and Amendment No. 61. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44 which is in my name. I shall try not to repeat myself. Between Amendment No. 42 and Amendment No. 44 I do not have any very strong preference. The purpose of Amendment No. 44, achieved also, I believe, by the other amendment, is to refer the issue to the test of intention. An adjudication officer may rule that a person is not actively seeking employment only if that person has deliberately diminished the likelihood of his finding work.
There are plenty of cases where people have got into trouble for things which were definitely not their intention. I give the example of a voluntary unemployment case but the principle also applies. Someone was held to be voluntarily unemployed having lost his job because his car broke down on the way to work. I doubt whether there is anyone in the House to whom that has not happened. Therefore, by the test of intention, that person would have been completely all right. All the criteria I was arguing for as regards the previous amendment are, I believe, met.
Amendment No. 61 is an interesting amendment and I am grateful to those who tabled it. It deals with what, in Catholic theology, is described as "works of supererogation" or, as it is described in innumerable citations, "actions above and beyond the call of duty". It allows to be taken into account actions by someone seeking work which do not happen to be those specified in the regulations but which nevertheless show a very great eagerness by that person to seek work. Again, by the test of intention, that is the sort of thing which, in any sensible world and between individuals, we would always take into account. Therefore, if the law were to prevent that, it would be a very great pity.
Lord Renton: I am pleasantly surprised and rather admire the constructive efforts which the Opposition have made in trying to avoid having secondary legislation on matters which could very well he covered by primary legislation. I go no further than that except to say that I hope that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will feel able to keep an open mind for the time being.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may begin with the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton. As I said in the earlier debate about the wider issues, we shall consider all these matters very carefully.
I shall begin with Amendment No. 42. This amendment only serves to demonstrate how difficult it is adequately to provide for these complex terms in primary legislation and why it is necessary to do so in secondary legislation. The details of availability and actively seeking have always been set out in secondary
812
legislation. It is by this route that we can most effectively encompass the different aspects of the modem labour market to which the benefit must be sensitive. It is through this route that consistency with other benefits both now and over time can most effectively be ensured; and it is through this route that small changes can best be made over time to reflect changes in the labour market or make changes in the light of experience of the effects of the labour market conditions of the benefit.
The definition gives no flexibility to define availability beyond what is reasonable in the case of each individual. For example, there is no link to hours, as in income support, or days, as in unemployment benefit. Thus it would be impossible to guide Jobcentre staff or adjudication officers in determining availability, which would lead to wide differences in the conditions applied to each individual with great scope for unfairness and inconsistency.
Let me emphasise once again that the Government are committed to meeting what I believe lies at the heart of what this and other amendments seek. The conditions of availability and actively seeking will be applied reasonably. The flexibility to agree the pattern of availability across the week will enable those who have difficulties working on any particular day—Sunday or otherwise—to take account of those problems while still meeting the normal terms of availability. In view of these commitments I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
While I can readily appreciate the reasoning behind Amendment No. 44, I cannot accept it. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is, though, clearly and understandably anxious to assure himself that the new features in the active seeking provisions will be used responsibly. It is most certainly our intention that independent adjudication officers will, when determining whether a jobseeker has negated his chances of being offered a job, take into account all the circumstances of the case. The Committee can rest assured that we have no intention of penalising jobseekers who inadvertently negate their chances of being offered a job. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that that should cover the example of the car that broke down.
I do not, however, believe that the amendment would help to clarify this matter: indeed it would serve to confuse the issue. The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that a term like "deliberate" is a very difficult term to use and interpret in legislation. Its presence in legislation might actually cloud issues, to the detriment of all, including the jobseeker. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Amendment No. 61 is unnecessary, and I am happy to make clear why. It is unnecessary because an adjudication officer will determine whether the steps a jobseeker takes to get back to work are sufficient to meet the actively seeking employment condition. And he will make that determination only on the basis of the provisions relating to actively seeking employment in

813
Clause 6 and any regulations made under that clause. Consequently, any steps a jobseeker takes to get back to work which are relevant to his circumstances will be taken into consideration when assessing whether he has met the condition regardless of whether they are included in his jobseeker's agreement.
One of the principal purposes of the jobseeker's agreement is to enable a jobseeker to discuss and agree with an employment officer the most appropriate route to get back to work. It will provide an opportunity to focus on the types of activities that will prove most successful in their search for work. Completing a jobseeker's agreement will be a condition of receiving JSA. But the agreement is not a binding contract and it must not become a straitjacket. Many jobseekers will find that in any given week they take steps to find work that are not included in their jobseeker's agreement. And they may not in that week take every step that is in their agreement. It is only common sense for this to be reflected in the way the law operates, and that is what we have secured.
Of course, if more substantial matters arise, the jobseeker may decide, in consultation with the employment officer, that he would like to change the steps he has outlined in the agreement. In those circumstances, it will be possible to vary it. A jobseeker may, for example, after his permitted period ends, wish to expand the type of jobs that he wants to apply for. He may also need to vary his agreement if, for example, he had been looking for jobs as a lorry driver and had since lost his licence. It would be sensible in such circumstances for the jobseeker's agreement to be changed. Clause 8 provides the necessary power to do that. For those reasons the amendment is not necessary. Perhaps I may venture that it might be withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy: I thought that we were making much progress earlier but in the light of what the Minister has just said, I question whether we have. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for what he said. He is absolutely right. We are trying to keep down the secondary legislation element. We know that there has to be secondary legislation, and that answers many of the points the Minister has just made. But we like to have something on the face of the Bill which in some way can influence and determine what can be done by regulation. That is what is done over and over again in legislation and we do not see why it should not be done in relation to this Bill.
The Minister says that our amendment exemplifies how difficult it is to define "available" and "actively". Presumably that is why the Government have never tried to do so. But the Minister says that it will be done now in regulations. For the life of me, I do not understand what is the essential inherent superiority of the regulation method. They both use English. Why is it that it is so much easier to overcome this difficult perennial problem of defining "available" and "actively" by regulation? I do not understand. If we had to do the
814
primary legislation in Latin or Urdu, I would see the point, but we use common English words, I hope, in primary and secondary legislation. So I do not understand why the Minister and the parliamentary draftsman find themselves to be so fluent when they put on their regulation hat and so stuck, and so unable to conjure words from the darkness, when they are writing primary legislation. Perhaps that can be explained to me.
Of course, we are saying that because it is difficult we should have a bit of both; we should have a bit of bold and a bit of italic; some primary legislation and some secondary legislation. Then perhaps we will get it right, however complicated it may be.
The Minister's other argument is that things change over time, and if things change over time and are complicated, then of course secondary legislation has certain advantages. I accept that. I accept that one of the main advantages of secondary legislation is that it is much easier to keep it up to date; to amplify it. But it is not a choice for us between primary and secondary legislation, it is a choice for the Minister. He likes only secondary legislation. He wants a few, spare, words which he read out to us, which could mean anything and which say that one can do anything. That is all he wants in primary legislation.
Finally, on Amendment 42 the Minister complains about the fact that we use the word "reasonable", as though it is part of the Government's case that they want to have permission to do something unreasonable. The only example he gave was that there was nothing in the amendment about reasonable hours. I accept that. It is a first attempt. If the Government were to come here this afternoon and say, "We do not mind your amendment, but you have done nothing about hours", the Government could take it away and put something else in its place, if they have a word that is better than "reasonable". I do not mind. I do not want the word "unreasonable", but I do not mind a different word so long as the Government accept the fact that there should be more on the face of the Bill.
I turn quickly to Amendment No. 61, because I know where I am. If one moves amendments in this place dealing with labour law one knows where one is when someone says that it is unnecessary. Of course the Minister says that it is unnecessary. The Government always say that. They would say that, would they not? It is necessary because if the provision we have put into the amendment—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained it extremely well and beyond the call of duty—could be done by an adjudicating officer I would rather people knew that it could be done by an adjudicating officer. I would not have guessed that it could be done by an adjudicating officer from reading the Bill because it is not in there. Even if it is in the regulations, I do not know how many people will read the regulations. I do not know how many people will read the Bill. But I know that those who assist and aid unemployed people will read the Bill, and, if they see something like that in the Bill, they will feel reassured. For those reasons we are minded to press Amendment No. 42 to a division.
4.44 p.m.
on Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Avebury, L.

Kintore, E.

Barnett, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chapple, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rix, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Simon, V.

Stallard, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Swinfen, L,

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jeger, R.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Borthwick, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailsa, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aldington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brookes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Burnham, L.

Argyll, D.

Cadman, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Atholl, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Biddulph, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blake, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Blyth, L.

Chesham, L.

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

816

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Colnbrook, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy seal]

Manchester, D.

Manton, L.

Cross, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Donegall, M.

Munster, E.

Dormer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gisborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Haddington, E.

Rees, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Renwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hemphill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Hogg, B.

Sharples, B.

Hood, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Slim, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kingsland, L.

Teynham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B.

Liverpool, E.

Vivian, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas, L.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert:
("() A Person who imposes restrictions on his availability for employment for one or more of the following reasons shall not, for that reason or reasons, be regarded as not available for employment—

(a) his religious belief,

(b) his conscience,

817

(c) his childcare responsibilities (including responsibilities in respect of foster children),

(d) his caring for a disabled or elderly person,

(e) his mental or physical condition,

(f) his attendance on a course of education, training or instruction designed to improve his prospects of obtaining suitable employment, or

(g) his objection to working on Sundays or the Sabbath.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44A, 52, 53 and 60. They are probing amendments which seek to build into the Bill protection against discrimination as regards particular groups of people. We fear that they might otherwise fail the actively seeking work test either because of their ethnic origin, gender or religion; or because they are involved in voluntary activities such as childcare, study or are, say, retained firemen; or because of their mental or physical condition.
Employment staff are drawn from the same cross-section of the population as the rest of us. We know that the vast majority do their job professionally and impartially. However, inevitably they bring to bear past experiences and sometimes present prejudices. That was confirmed to me when some months ago I spent time in a social security office discussing social fund payments.
Most of the experienced and professional officers disagreed among themselves as to whom they would award social fund payments. They all aligned themselves with the experience of the person to whom they were giving the loan. The woman who favoured giving a social fund loan to the woman who was caring for an elderly parent was herself caring for an elderly parent. The woman who favoured giving additional funds to a lone parent was herself a lone parent. In other words, I know from my personal experience that good, trained, decent and sensitive staff nonetheless come with a perspective that is understandable, drawn from their own experience. We wish to press that issue in this cluster of amendments.
Our first anxiety is reflected in some of our debates about Sunday trading. Religious beliefs might lead someone not to want to work on the Sabbath, whether that be a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day of religious observance. Given present developments in the labour market, that might restrict them as regards working in the retail trade. It is important that on such grounds they do not lose their right to benefit, and we seek the Minister's clarification.
Similarly, there is the issue of conscience. At the extreme end of the scale is the person who is a Quaker, for instance, and is unwilling and morally unable to work in an industry associated with the arms trade. Another example might be a vegetarian who refuses to work in an abattoir or a meat processing factory.
The anxiety relating to ethnic origin can work both ways. I have seen it assumed that a well-educated black male will be more willing than his white counterpart to engage in manual labour. On the other hand, we have received reports from a London citizens advice bureau of a Bangladeshi man who was barely able to speak English and who sought a job in a kitchen precisely so that language would not be a problem. As proof of his
818
job search he was required to submit the checking of advertisements in the Evening Standard, newspaper cuttings and letters. As he was unable to read, write or speak English, all those conditions were impossible and he could not meet them.
People may have caring responsibilities for children, the elderly or the disabled. With enough notice they can rearrange that caring responsibility but we fear that, unless they have the time and they can show evidence of that, they will not be regarded as properly available, even though we would all wish to help them to continue to be effective carers.
Local authorities have raised with us another group of concerns. The first relates to foster parents, in particular temporary foster parents who will take children for a short time until they go on to permanent placements. At present such temporary foster parents arc not required to sign on as being available for work because that would inhibit the very flexibility that local authorities and we as a society require them to have; to be available almost at a drop of a hat to take on a baby or a deserted small child as and when necessary. That is the present situation in respect of income support and unemployment benefit and we hope that it will continue in respect of JSA. We look to the Minister for reassurances to that effect.
Another situation which the local authorities have raised is that of retained firemen or lifeboat men. At the moment they are entitled to retain their benefit even though they may fall foul of the actively seeking work provisions. We seek an assurance from the Minister in that regard.
Equally, we must consider those undertaking part-time studies and those with a mental or physical condition. We wish to be confident that there will be no variation among local offices. The Government have accepted the question of hours but not, for example, the pattern of hours or the location of work. It may be essential for someone with a physical or mental condition to be close to home.
In other words, this is a portfolio of concerns which we believe may trespass on the notion of the availability for and actively seeking work. The worry is the degree of discretion to be exercised by front-line staff in determining the content of the jobseeker's agreement; the degree of discretion shown in determining whether or not the conditions have been fulfilled; and the degree of discretion exhibited by those officers when deciding whether or not to stop benefit for two weeks or indefinitely.
If the problems raised by this amendment are not addressed satisfactorily by the Government, we fear that certain groups—on grounds of ethnicity or health, or because they are in voluntary occupations or such occupations as being a foster parent, or because they have mental or physical disabilities—may disproportionately be denied benefit as they cannot be fitted easily into the tidy category of actively seeking work.
We believe that the likelihood of discrimination is considerable. The penalty or fine for the claimant is huge: he loses benefit. The opportunity to rectify that is

819
belated and problematical. Therefore, we should welcome the Minister's reassurances in relation to those categories of claimants. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Amendment No. 52, which stands in my name, is grouped with this amendment. Therefore, I shall now speak to that amendment. I welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. My amendment is also a probing amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide protection against discrimination by Employment Service staff in the exercise of their powers under the Bill which, as the Committee will know, gives them new powers in relation to drawing up and enforcing the jobseeker's agreement. I am sure that most members of staff are conscientious but firm guidelines are needed to guard against discrimination and abuse of powers. I am sure that there will be no intention to abuse those powers but that may happen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, as a result of the circumstances and experience of the staff.
There is anxiety about discrimination against those with disabilities, particularly hidden disabilities, which are not taken into account in the incapacity for work test. For example, I understand that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux sees many people who are refused employment on the grounds of being epileptic. Those with histories of mental illness also encounter prejudice in the employment market.
Other groups affected by prejudice in that market are older employees, young black men—I understand that the unemployment rate for that group in London is in the region of 62 per cent.—and refugees, whose abilities are often considerably underestimated. Unless the Employment Service staff are aware of those factors in the job market, the treatment of their clients, particularly in relation to the jobseeker's agreement, may also be discriminatory.
In addition, the pay and promotion structure of the Employment Service now includes targets for referrals of cases for adjudication. Those who have the greatest difficulty in finding work will be those who are most vulnerable and mostly likely to have their cases referred. A clear commitment to anti-discrimination practices is vital to ensure that jobseekers are protected and Employment Service staff are not pressured into making discriminatory decisions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise with great pleasure to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously accepting the amendments or tabling similar amendments on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to the target set in the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1994–95; namely, a target of 135,000 cases to be referred to adjudicators on the grounds of an arguable case—I use the words in the actual agreement—for disallowing benefit.
820
The amendment seeks to distinguish between those people who have no grounds for continuing to receive benefit because they are not seriously seeking work and those who are seriously seeking work but who have legitimate and powerful reasons for not accepting all the work which may be offered to them. Members of the Committee will know of the fears expressed by the Church of England, Roman Catholic bishops and representatives of the Islamic community. They fear that people who wish to worship on a Sunday may instead be obliged to work. Such people would be placed in an extremely difficult position of conscience. I am sure that the Committee would not wish to see that situation arise.
A second strong argument has been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Some people, especially those with learning difficulties, those not in command of the English language, or those who come from an ethnic culture, are not immediately attractive to employers and may be disallowed benefit on those grounds alone. We know now that the proportion of cases disallowed benefit by the adjudicators has literally doubled in the past four years from 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. because the adjudicators are more likely to reject appeals than they were four or five years ago.
Therefore, I plead with the Minister to consider granting the protection we suggest. It is very carefully worded to ensure that it applies only to those who are bona fide seekers of jobs but who have genuine grounds of conscience, culture, education or handicap. Such people need that protection. I very much hope that this set of amendments will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Rix: I rise to support briefly but enthusiastically the clarification proposed in Amendment No. 52 and the further clarification proposed in Amendment No. 43. Both amendments seek to achieve the same ends.
I wish to stress the problems of people with disabilities. I am glad that clarification is sought. I am sure that the Government, even at their most pigheaded and cloth-eared, are not suggesting that disabled people should be directed at employment for which their disability makes them totally unsuitable. If the rules are not absolutely clear and reasonable to those administering them, disabled people may find themselves dealing with officials who are neither clear nor reasonable. Therefore I support Amendments Nos. 43 and 52.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I do not wish to duplicate the points already made. But I wish to add my voice in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I support Amendment No. 52 in particular. I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Particular regard should be paid to those groups of people—those who are disabled and those who may be affected by the circumstances set out in that amendment. Unless we have that specific protection against discrimination, I am absolutely certain that it will result in tears for many thousands of people.
It is not a matter of accusing the staff in any way, but they are indeed taking on new responsibilities. They have not yet had the experience of dealing with such

821
people. I am sure that the protection which would be afforded by the amendments, and the commitments and clarification involved, would be of great benefit. We are dealing with special circumstances which require special provisions. I hope that the Government will look upon the amendments sympathetically.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may interject a few points about carers. First, I should like to ask the Government if they will look again at one point in the income support general regulations. It concerns the availability for work of those who have young children. The specification at present is that they are responsible for finding care for the child and for making themselves available for work within 24 hours; otherwise they are found to be "not available".
We believe that that 24-hour period is unrealistic. I say that because, until one is offered a job, one does not know what the hours will be, what travelling will be involved, what sort of care will be appropriate, or what kind of shifts are required. I should be most grateful to hear that the Government are prepared to consider a rather longer interval.
Secondly, I should like an assurance from the Government in the following respect. Where responsibility for care of young children is involved, I should like an assurance that they will not assume a priori, before knowing how that family manages its business, that only women are capable of being carers of children. I believe that that assumption is out of date. I would welcome an assurance that it will not be operative in the administration of the legislation.
I hope that the Government will think very hard about the matter. I ask them to study the speech in the Debate on the Address made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool regarding the pressure that some retailers put on employees to work on Sundays. I believe that that is a very strong reason for thinking that legislation is needed.
Lord Inglewood: In responding to the amendments, I hope that Members of the Committee will bear in mind the fact that I shall be dealing with the nuts and bolts of the form of the amendments and also referring to the underlying concerns. Amendment No. 43 seeks to define the conditions of restricted availability on the face of the Bill. As with a number of other amendments that we have been discussing, I fear that the amendment serves only to demonstrate how difficult it is adequately to provide for this complex term in primary legislation and why we believe that it is necessary to do so in secondary legislation. The details of availability have always been set out in secondary legislation. It is by that route that we can most effectively encompass the different aspects of the modern labour market to which the benefit must he sensitive.
I understand why the noble Baroness and the noble Earl want to provide explicitly for areas of restrictions, but Amendment No. 43 would turn JSA away from its focus on jobseeking. Any restriction on grounds of religious belief, caring responsibilities, disability, or for training and study would have to be disregarded in determining availability. There is no provision to enable an adjudication officer to decide whether or not the
822
restrictions are reasonable in themselves or reasonable in the case of the claimant, let alone reasonable in terms of the prospects of getting a job with the restrictions. The amendment would be unworkable.
Let me emphasise once again that the Government are committed to meeting what I believe lies at the heart of what the amendments seek. The conditions of availability and actively seeking will be applied reasonably. The steps which a person must take to be actively seeking should be those which offer him best prospects of securing work. People with disabilities will be able to restrict their availability in accordance with their mental or physical condition without reference to their prospects of securing employment notwithstanding their restrictions.
People with caring responsibilities—be they for children or for sick and elderly relatives—will be able to place restrictions on the hours of their availability. People with sincerely held religious or conscientious beliefs will be able to place restrictions on the type of work that they are prepared to undertake. For example, I believe that reference was made to Moslems. If a Moslem woman was under consideration, she would not be required to be available for employment which required working alongside men if that would cause difficulties. Equally, a vegetarian would not be expected to work in an abattoir. Those restrictions would be discussed with the ES adviser.
In addition, people will not be required to be available on their normal day of worship by virtue of the framing of the general 40-hour availability requirement. That will enable them to stipulate from the start of their claim that they are not available on, say, a Saturday because of their Jewish faith. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am much obliged. I should like to pursue the Minister on that point for just a moment. I do so because what he said is extremely important. Indeed, he has been very precise in using the phrase, "will not be required". Given the fact that that wording is not on the face of the Bill, can the Minister tell the Committee how we can ensure that the word "not" is applied in practice? For example, will it be in regulations or in the guidance to Department of Employment officers?
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, perhaps I may make a further point. My noble friend specifically referred to Jewish people working on the sabbath. However, what is the position of an Orthodox Jew where the sabbath starts at sunset on the Friday and when, in winter, that can be as early as 3.30 in the afternoon? How will that position be affected?
Lord Inglewood: I shall respond, first, to the point made by the noble Baroness. In that respect, the matter will be dealt with in regulations. As I said, we shall approach the problems along the lines I described. The kind of comment made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen shows how complicated it can be accurately to deal with such matters so that the result can meet the religious requirements of the person concerned. However, there are many people with all kinds of

823
different religious criteria involved. It is our intention that those requirements shall he met whenever it is possible to do so.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister aware that there can be very real difficulty, even for those of us in this Chamber who follow such matters with some care, in knowing exactly what is in the regulations or guidance? How does the Minister propose that such restrictions on availability should be made clear to an aggressive employer with a strong concern about his profit margins?
Lord Inglewood: The regulations are legislation and are publicly-available documents. Moreover, they have the sanction of the law behind them.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that the two amendments to which he is referring—Amendments Nos. 43 and 52—give broad-brush definitions which everyone can understand. I should have thought that the wording defining the exact meaning of religious belief, conscience and so on would be clearly stated in the regulations. However, the broad-brush approach is in the amendments and, if they were accepted, it would therefore be clear in primary legislation.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: It seems to us that the nature of our debate indicates that the right way is to put such matters in regulation. The more we look into the matter, the more detailed it seems we must he in order satisfactorily to resolve the particular problems we are trying to address.
The key to the issue is that there will he flexibility to agree the pattern of availability across the week which will enable those who have difficulties working on any particular day—whether it be a Sunday or otherwise—to take account of those problems while still meeting the normal terms of availability. In view of those comments, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
I turn now to Amendment No. 44A. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that we recognise the special role that part-time firefighters play and the service that they provide to the community; and, indeed, that applies equally to the other groups to which she referred. Part-time firefighters have historically enjoyed special treatment in unemployment benefits and we will continue that under JSA. We believe that the benefit regime should recognise that those firefighters provide the service in a way which is often combined with normal working patterns. Current provisions carried forward into JSA will continue to encourage and make it possible for unemployed people to provide such services.
The current special treatment for part-time firefighters is provided for in regulations. We will adopt the same approach in JSA as currently provided for in unemployment benefit. We intend to provide in regulations, under Clause 6(2), that people engaged in the performance of the duty of a part-time fireman maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Acts 1947
824
to 1959 shall be treated as available for employment on the days they are acting as firemen. This is a detailed issue and we believe it is more suitable for secondary rather than primary legislation. I hope that with the Government's assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I wish now to move on to Amendment No. 52 which seeks to ensure that the labour market conditions—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is doing his best to answer some quite precise questions. On the original, so to speak, shopping list associated with Amendment No. 43, although he talked to some of the issues, he did not respond to the point about foster parents. Will he also answer that point please?
Lord Inglewood: As regards foster parents, the general position is the same as for other parents. JSA regulations will both enable people to restrict their availability in line with caring and contain an easement to enable the carer to have a 24-hour easement from the condition to be immediately available.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think that was the point that was being made, and certainly the answer does not address it. As I understand it, at the moment foster parents are eligible for unemployment benefit which is not impeded by the fact that they may not be available for work because they have to be available to take a child on instant notice. We are not talking about long-term foster parents; we are talking about those who receive children on a temporary placement basis. They have a particular and protected position which we wish to ensure continues if they are to fulfil that job; otherwise they will lose their ability to be foster parents because the actively available for seeking work requirements will cut across that standby arrangement rather like the case of retained fire-fighters. Perhaps this is not the right time for the Minister to provide a detailed answer, but I hope that he will take note of that point. It is not the long-term foster parents I am so concerned about but rather the temporary foster parent who is in and out of fostering.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. The general position is as I said, that foster parents are treated as other parents. However, having heard those useful remarks, it may be helpful if I respond to this matter later.
Amendment No. 52 seeks to ensure that the labour market conditions of JSA will be able to take account of the many different needs of people looking for work. I emphasise once more to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that this has always been our objective. Remarks have been made about possible discrimination in the operation of the Employment Service. I emphasise that there is a clear obligation and commitment on the service not to exercise any discrimination at all in the manner in which it carries out its functions.
Reference was also made to a target. It is not a target which is intended to try to ensure that a certain number of people are disqualified; it is a target which is intended to provide for the Employment Service what is anticipated to be the likely amount of referrals which

825
should in turn be properly documented so that no one's time is wasted and the matter is dealt with properly. The Employment Service has a job to do which includes both paying out and denying payment. It is the job of the Employment Service to do that properly within the terms of reference which it is set. If the Committee is concerned that staff delivering JSA act in a discriminatory way, I hope this assurance will satisfy it.
Lord McCarthy: Given the noble Lord's preference, which he has shown throughout the day, for secondary as against primary legislation, does he not accept there is a special argument for the provision that we are discussing from the point of view of being declaratory of government policy? As far as I understand the noble Lord, he is not saying that there will be regulations about the matters in Amendment No. 52. But even if there are, is there not a special case for putting a commitment of this kind on the face of the Bill? Is it not more likely that it will be taken seriously inside the department if that is done?
Lord Inglewood: No, I do not think that that approach leads to that conclusion at all. The department's position in this regard is quite clear. The Government's policy in this regard is quite clear. I should have thought that ought to be sufficient. In general our policy is to include and not to exclude, to take account of all the facts in determining eligibility for benefit, not to ignore them. I fear that the provision envisaged in this amendment would be impossible to relate to real labour market needs and could result in some of the claimants qualifying for JSA when their intentions and actions meant that they were not genuine jobseekers. For that reason I must urge the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, can he tell the Committee whether the salary of the Employment Service staff is affected in any way by the number of cases that they refer to adjudication?
Lord Inglewood: No, it is not. Public sector pay is related to a person's contribution to the performance of the organisation. Employment Service annual performance objectives arc translated into local office standards. These are reflected in the individual's work-related objectives. In the case of an employment officer, these will include, for example, placings into work and accuracy and speed of benefit payments. There is not, and will not be, any correlation between the conditions of benefit for a jobseeker and an employment officer's pay. I hope that puts the matter beyond peradventure.
Earl Russell: The Minister has once again invoked the advantages of flexibility. Can I ask him how Parliament can have any input into that flexibility, and whether I am right in believing that it is still the basic principle that Parliament makes the law?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl is absolutely right. The law of the land is made by Parliament and there are procedures for dealing with primary legislation and, equally, for dealing with secondary legislation. As the
826
noble Earl knows, in the case of this Bill the affirmative procedure will be used at the initial stages of the transition from the existing arrangements.
Earl Russell: What is this Chamber to do if something is done under these powers, not necessarily by this Government, to which we feel we cannot give our consent?
Lord Inglewood: We seem to be going back over a debate that we have had before. However, in a country where Parliament is sovereign and cannot hind its successors, that is a matter ultimately for Parliament in the future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I also wish to ask the Minister a question before we decide what to do with this amendment. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any aspect of Amendment No. 43 concerning religious belief, conscience, childcare responsibilities, caring, mental or physical condition, attendance on a course of education or working on the sabbath, or concerning the matter of fire-fighters, on which I accept the Minister has given us a helpful reply, or concerning Amendment No. 52, that he disagrees with? Is there any of this that he is not proposing should not be covered by regulation?
Lord Inglewood: Without going through it with a fine toothcomb, I am not prepared at this point to give an unequivocal reply to that question. However, I can say that it is our intention to implement what I have described, as well as many other matters besides.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, would the Minister care to enlarge on that answer? Is he saying that in principle he accepts all of these matters and in addition he has some other matters to cover, as yet unspecified, which therefore we will not be scrutinising in this part of the Bill? Will he tell us what he has in mind?
Lord Inglewood: There is an enormous amount of detail needed to get a comprehensive picture of the matters that we are discussing here. Certain new matters have been raised this afternoon. Therefore it is difficult for me to give a reply with the level of detail which I have been asked to do. I will merely return to my original proposition and say that we are committed to what I have already described—the general principles, and those principles will be implemented in the legislation. They overlap considerably with a number of the topics that the noble Baroness has raised.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks, I wish to pursue two matters. First, the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Are we correct in believing that there was a target set in the Employment Service performance target for 1994–95 for 135,000 cases to be referred? Am I correct in understanding that the number of cases disallowed has risen more than twice over between the nine months of January to September 1994 and the same months in 1993? Will he stand by his assurance that this has no effect whatever on the decisions that are made by employment officers, because there seems to be some

827
relationship between the rapid rise in disclaiming and the fact that this was a target set clearly for the Employment Service last year?
I wish to press the Minister on a further issue. He mentioned that there was a 24-hour period in which benefit was not disallowed to mothers of children who were given that period of time to make provision for childcare. Will he accept my assurance as a mother and the assurance of other mothers and fathers in the Chamber that it is difficult to arrange childcare of a satisfactory nature within 24 hours? I may have misunderstood the noble Lord but to drive mothers into making unsatisfactory childcare arrangements at the present time seems to me to have nothing whatever to do with the belief in the family to which most of us—indeed all of us—on both sides of this Chamber subscribe.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: To reply to the second point raised by the noble Baroness, if one is actively looking for work, which is the test, one has to have some idea of how one will deal with these matters. It should not come as a complete surprise. That is an important aspect to be borne in mind when considering whether one wants to go down this particular avenue.
It is the case that the Employment Service has a target for its annual performance agreement, which this year is 135,000 submissions. I believe that the noble Baroness is correct in saying that that figure is an increase on the previous figure. The policy of the Employment Service is that those people who are entitled to benefits should have them and those people who are not entitled to benefits should not have them. That is a rather trite truism, but that is the basis on which the service operates. If the number of disallowances increases, that is a consequence of the policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am still puzzled by the Minister's reply. He seems to suggest that we are throwing unreasonable demands at him by tabling these amendments. I remind the noble Lord that this Bill has been through the other place and has been explored. The amendment has been tabled for some considerable time. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly said in relation to Amendment No. 52, the general statement of principle is a fairly standard clause which is inserted into all sorts of local authority and government Bills and contracts.
We are trying to establish whether there is a difference of substance between us. In other words, we are trying to establish whether the Government do not accept that any of these grounds are reasonable causes for restricting availability for work or whether the only difference between us is whether they should be set out on the face of the Bill or in regulation. Will the Minister please tell us?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness raises questions which I thought I had answered earlier, but I did not make myself clear.
There is an enormous amount of common ground between ourselves and the Benches opposite in terms of where the exclusions should fall. If my understanding
828
of the arguments that have been put forward is correct, the main disagreement between us in this particular regard concerns how they should be incorporated in legislation. We believe that the method we propose will be more beneficial.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I take the Minister to be telling the Committee that he accepts the principle of the amendments. It is important to have written in Hansard, given the legal aspect, that he accepts the substance of the amendments and that he expects to embody the amendments in regulation.
Lord Inglewood: I cannot give a commitment that every nuance or item contained in the Opposition's proposals will be included in regulation. I can give the Committee a commitment that we accept the vast bulk of what has been proposed and that we intend to deal with those matters in regulation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, is the Minister saying that, after the Bill has spent several weeks in the other place and these amendments have been tabled, the Minister does not yet know what will be included in regulations under a Bill which is due to take effect in fewer than 12 months' time, despite the level of consultation? The Minister should know—in which case he should be able to tell us. Alternatively, if the Minister does not know, then we revert to the consideration discussed earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is a framework Bill to which the Government will subsequently give whatever meaning occurs to them when eating their cornflakes.
There is a real issue here. If the Government mean the Bill to cover those categories of people who are among some of the most socially valuable people in our society—such as carers, ethnic minorities or those with a learning disability—and the Minister accepts, as I believe he does, that it is right that those groups should be able to have a reasonable limit on their availability for work and should not be disqualified from benefit, can he explain to us why, apart from a devious wish to fill in the details later when he has had some thoughts, that should not be stated on the face of the Bill? If the Minister agrees with us that these groups should be covered, as it appears from his answer that he does, what is the advantage of dealing with the matter in secondary legislation, which your Lordships cannot discuss, which Parliament has no right to amend and which this Chamber has no right to negate, as opposed to having it on the face of the Bill? Why should it be left to the Government to define with hindsight rather than for this House to clarify what constitutes effectively a conscientious objection, or a mitigation or limitation on availability for work?
The Government opened by saying that with these amendments we were turning away from JSA. On the contrary, we are trying to make clear what it means to be entitled to JSA and what would constitute a reasonable limitation on availability for work in claiming JSA.
All that the Minister has said, and he has repeated it endlessly, is that the Government prefer to do this by regulation. He has given no reason. He simply reiterated it ad nauseam. We can only believe that he wants that flexibility either because he does not know what would

829
be included in the regulations or because he suspects that if that information was shown on the face of the Bill it would not command the consent of this Committee. Which is it?
Lord Inglewood: I do not feel that I can usefully go over again what I said in reply to earlier comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The position is clear. We believe that it is appropriate to deal with these matters by regulation. We had a debate on the subject earlier today and I explained to the Committee that we shall consider very carefully the matters that were raised in that debate.
We accept the general principles of the matters which the noble Baroness has raised and that, in the practical world, they should be dealt with along the lines she suggested. There will be other related matters which we shall also wish to deal with. All the circumstances outlined in the amendments will be grounds for acceptable restriction, and JSA will provide for them in regulation. However, in our view the terms of the amendment are unacceptable.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend deal with the point that the noble Baroness made—I believe wrongly—when she said that if these matters were dealt with by regulation, there would be no possibility of this House discussing them? Surely that is wrong? I should be grateful if my noble friend would nail that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There may have been a slip of the tongue. Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I understood that I said that this House would have no opportunity to negate or amend the regulations. We shall have an opportunity to discuss them, but we have no control over the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness has now amended her erroneous statement, so I need not trouble my noble friend further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the problem was with the hearing of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which is unusual in this House, rather than a misstatement on my part.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may confirm the recollection of the noble Baroness of what she said. I listened very carefully to that point, and she remembers it correctly.
Lord Swinfen: On every single important Bill we appear to have trouble with regulations. It is obvious that the regulations cannot be produced until the Bill is enacted. We are not in a position to have the regulations; but I should have thought that when a Bill is drafted, the Government must already be thinking of the type of regulations they propose to bring forward. Would it be possible to have some form of outline of the regulations published with each Bill? They could not be finalised until the Bill was enacted. Alternatively, could the Government ask both Houses to examine, and perhaps amend, regulations after the Bill has been passed?
The present situation appears to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. There is so much secondary legislation which Parliament does not have an opportunity to
830
amend. Although we can discuss such legislation, once it has been decided by the other place, there is very little point in considering it. We cannot even throw it out.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Minister is faced with intransigence on both sides of the Chamber. The main reason is that we are dealing with a number of very vulnerable people. We feel that we shall let them down unless we get a clear and categoric answer from the Minister which is different from the one he has given so far.
Secondly, many of us who have experience of legislation know that eventually, if the Minister has his way tonight—and he may if the matter is put to the vote—and this matter goes through via regulation, many of these people will get in touch with us in years to come saying that they have been let down. The regulations may be interpreted differently from the way we recommend and they will feel let down and we will feel let down. That is why we are pressing the matter.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the Minister will understand that I seek to help. He states that there is a great deal of common ground between us on the amendment. Could he give us an example of non-common ground? Is there any small piece of non-common ground in the amendment that he cannot accept? If he cannot do so today, can he give that information to us on Report or at some other stage?
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we produced a full memorandum on the use of delegated powers in the submission to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It laid out exactly how we were hoping and intending to deal with these matters.
With regard to amendments and the procedure of the House, noble Lords may remember the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, this afternoon when he addressed those matters. As I said then, we shall consider carefully what he said, as we shall do all remarks made by noble Lords in that debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, made the point that people will feel let down by what we propose to do. It is not the Government's intention to let down anyone who should fall within the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank Members of the Committee for joining in the debate. We are hearing a repeat of some of the concerns that were voiced in the first debate this afternoon on the scope of delegated powers. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to the interim report. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 13 on page 3. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee stated:
"We will consider in our next report whether the bill provides sufficient parliamentary control over the power to define these terms".
That is the issue. We still have not coaxed from the Minister what the problem is. He seemed to suggest in his reply to me and to my noble friend Lord McCarthy earlier that he agrees with the grounds. If that is so, he can have no objection to putting those provisions on the face of the Bill so that everyone knows where they stand. If the Minister does not agree, he has an

831
obligation to tell the Committee on what grounds he disagrees. That he has failed to do. Therefore, our belief must be that he seeks obfuscation for the sake of it even though he has had ample opportunity for clarification.
That is much to be regretted. We do not propose to press the amendment tonight although we shall certainly return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 44A not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, leave out lines 21 and 22.
The noble Earl said: I am sorry that I cannot give any relief from regulations, but there is little else in the Bill to discuss. The clause to which I wish to draw attention states:
"A person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".
In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, the Government state:
"Regulations under paragraph (d) will provide for people who are actively seeking employment to be treated as if they were not. This will include, for example, 16 and 17 year olds who are not actively seeking training as well as employment".
Therefore the power relates to the provision in Clause 3 and allows the Government to make training compulsory by regulation.
There is a serious case against the use of compulsion in that field. It is set out in the report of the citizens advice bureaux, In Search of Work, a copy of which I forwarded to the Minister some months ago. I do not believe that we need to go into it now. This is a serious decision on which two legitimate views may be held. The consequence of that decision, whenever the Minister in his wisdom sees fit to take it, is that people will be disentitled to benefit.
I must state here a personal view, but according to my conscience I can do no other than act on it. Totally disentitling people to benefit is always wrong, for very much the same reasons as the death penalty is always wrong. There may even be a case for saying that the death penalty is the preferable of the two because, so far as I am aware, you do not continue to suffer after it is inflicted. I stated, "so far as I am aware", and I can say no other.
We have here two major points on which the Committee is being asked to waive its right to give consent. One relates to the introduction of compulsory training; and the other to disentitlement to benefit. I always vote against a total disentitlement to benefit when it is in my power to do so. Therefore I do not see why I should be asked to hand to the Minister the right to impose such disentitlement whenever he likes and to do so in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As I stated when we discussed Amendment No. 40, the noble Earl has provided a useful service by moving Amendment No. 45. Clause 6(2) (d) needs to be considered in the light of paragraph (c). The
832
two go very much together. One is in a sense a converse of the other. Superficially each is a contradiction in terms, but we must accept that.
Clause 6(2) (c) seems to me to be fair to the individual. It states:
"A person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment".
That is in fact an exemption. The converse proposition in paragraph (d) states:
"A person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".
That could be unfair. The provision requires a tremendous amount of explanation in regulations. We have no idea yet as to precisely what the Government have in mind. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend, Lord Inglewood, says. However, before giving this regulation-making power which affects the life of the individual to such an extent, and, incidentally, his financial rights to a jobseeking allowance, we are entitled to some quite specific statement from the Government. I shall be interested to hear it.
Lord McCarthy: It indicates great self-control on the part of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that at this point he seeks to get rid of only the one provision, because there are four such provisions. The first states:"A person who is not available for employment is to be treated as available for employment".
The second states:
"A person who is available for employment is to be treated as not available for employment".
The third states:
"A person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment".
The fourth states:
"A person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".
In other words, the Bill contains all kinds of nonsense. I know that if one works one's way through the interim report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee there are definitions. But this is nonsense on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: We have considered the clients, but we have not considered the people who have to administer this legislation in the local offices. I cannot imagine that they will ever understand what they have to do under these provisions. I support the amendment.
Lord Rix: If those lines had been written into one of the plays which I did in Whitehall in my former life, without doubt they would have been struck out of the script at the first reading!
Lord Inglewood: Clause 6(2) (d) allows regulations to prescribe circumstances in which for the purposes of this Act a person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment. That would do no more than carry forward the provisions of the current legislation. The amendment, however, seeks to ensure that no such regulations could be made. Nevertheless, I can understand why other noble Lords should have some concern about what may appear to be an unusual provision. Let me therefore give the assurance that this provision, just like the power to treat

833
certain groups as not available, may certainly not be used to exclude from benefit people who should receive JSA.
Many Members of the Committee will be aware that, when the issue was discussed in another place, Ministers were asked to consider whether there was a need for a provision of this kind to be carried forward into JSA. We have now given the matter careful consideration and concluded that we do have such a need.
We have made clear that it is in the interests of young people that they should not be on benefit and have provided the guarantee of a place on a youth training programme for all 16 and 17 year-olds. Where, however, in exceptional circumstances they are claiming jobseeker's allowance, the conditions of benefit which apply to them should be appropriate to their particular circumstances. We therefore intend that they should be required actively to seek training as well as employment.
That is where this provision will show its utility. We intend to provide that, unless they are actively seeking both employment and training, young people will be treated as not actively seeking employment. I believe that this is a sensible use of the provision to enable regulations to be made which will fully reflect the particular needs of one particular group of jobseekers.
In reply to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, in the offices the regulation, not the power, will determine what is done in any particular instance. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I have done my best to follow him but, as I understand it, he has made it clear that paragraph (d) is intended to cover circumstances where people are undergoing training. The Minister has mentioned no other circumstances, as I heard him, to be covered by the proposition. If that is so and it has that narrow effect, could that not be stated in the Bill instead of being left to regulations?
Lord Inglewood: That is an interesting point which we shall have to consider carefully.
Baroness Seear: Also before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify one point which I have raised on a number of occasions in previous debates. The Government talk about training, but it is not just any training. It is futile to encourage intelligent people to take training for jobs which they do not wish to have and for which they have little talent. Is there no way of limiting the requirement for training to training for something after they have been positively advised and have agreed that they wish to train for it? We are always told, "There is training". That is not good enough. It must be appropriate training. Is there not some way for that to be recognised on the face of the Bill? Also the point is not limited to the youngsters, because nothing could be more awful for the trainers than having to train someone who does not wish to learn what is being taught, has no facility for it and will not use it later to any effect. The point needs clarifying.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness is right about training. In the event of there being a jobseeker's
834
agreement in place—as there will be—that matter will be discussed between the employment officer and the claimant so that they may reach a satisfactory decision as to the type of training that would be appropriate in the circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could help me further. Like everyone else, I was trying to puzzle out the meaning of paragraph (d). The Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee gave cases of 16 and 17 year-olds. The legislation tries to ensure that certain groups of people who are actively seeking work will, if they fail to obtain it, nevertheless not qualify for benefit. The Minister gives the example of 16 and 17 year-olds. Also, can he tell us about the habitual residence test? Will it apply to British nationals returning from abroad after 20 years who may be actively seeking work but who fail the habitual residence test? Will they be caught under the regulation?
Lord Inglewood: The habitual residence test is a quite separate issue from this matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But is the Minister saying that someone coming back from abroad who is actively seeking work and who is, in a sense, a foreigner, will not fall into this category or will not be treated as though he is not actively seeking work and is therefore not eligible for benefit? Is that so?
Lord Inglewood: I hope I understood the noble Baroness's point correctly. The habitual residence test is an entirely separate matter from this test.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Minister will go a little further than he did in response to my noble friend Lord Renton. He put a reasonable proposition and I hope that the Minister will agree that this was so. Apart from the immediate point which arises, frankly, as it stands, the Bill looks ridiculous. Paragraphs (c) and (d), if they were in the press, would make it look as though the Government had gone crazy in their legislation. It is necessary to make it clear that, contrary to how it may look on paper, the Bill is not contradicting itself in successive paragraphs: it has an intended meaning. Although I believe I understand from the Minister what that meaning is, it is important that it should be spelt out and not brushed aside, if the Minister will allow me to say so, as it was when my noble friend Lord Renton raised the matter.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments corroborating the value of the Bill. I listened carefully to his remarks and of course I did not intend any discourtesy or cursoriness in the manner in which I dealt with my noble friend Lord Renton's point. I assure my noble friends that this is a point which we shall have to examine carefully.
Earl Russell: It is not the Minister's courtesy that anyone has called in question: none of us would presume to do so. We call in question his flexibility. He has been uttering the word "flexibility" all the afternoon and we are asking him to practise what he preaches.

835
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Seear for her comment on suitable training. We have put down an amendment which bears on that point. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the distinction which he made between paragraphs (c) and (d). Paragraph (c) is the prerogative of mercy. It is my understanding that, for example, it protects women in refuges who sometimes dare not go out to seek work for fear of pursuit.
Last night I wrote to the Minister on the point, but, since the letter will not have reached him yet, I would not presume to ask him to reply to it. Were we to attempt, against the interests of the subject, to do things as far-reaching as we can do under the prerogative of mercy, that would be very dismaying. It would be a kind of prerogative of mercilessness. That is not what we want.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his intervention, which I found extremely helpful. What I did not hear from the Minister was any real suggestion of a possibility that the provision might change. I was listening carefully and did not hear it. If I am mistaken I shall give way to him now. I ask the Minister one question: if it is my wish to vote against disentitlement under this power, would he rather that I did it now or when the regulations are placed before the House? I shall wait for his answer and act on it.
Lord Inglewood: It is rather like being asked, "When did you stop beating your wife?". It is a matter for the noble Earl to decide. It is entirely in his hands as to whether he would rather do it now or on some other occasion.
Earl Russell: In that case, I have no alternative but to ask the opinion of the Committee.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gregson, L.

Barnett, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hardinge, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hertford, M.

Hollick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dubs, L.

Kintore, E.

Falkland, V.

Lockwood, B.

Farringlon of Ribbleton, B.

Longford, E.

Geraint. L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

836

McNair, L.

Seear, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Moyne, L.

Simon, V.

Nicol, B.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Swinfen, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Raglan, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Rix, L.

Wharton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Aldington, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Annaly, L.

Goschen, V.

Argyll, D.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Balfour, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blake, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blaker, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blyth, L.

Hemphill, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hogg, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bradford, E.

Hooper, B.

Brentford, V.

Howe, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Inglewood, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Brookes, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Burnham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kingsland, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kitchener, E.

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Liverpool, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Lucas, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McConnell, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Colwyn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Courtown, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Cox, B.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Melville, V.

Crathorne, L.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

837

Quinton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Rawlings, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Saint Albans, D.

St. Davids, V.

Sudeley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Vivian, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Westmorland, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Slim, V.

Wynford, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Young, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert:
("() A sick or disabled person who imposes restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other conditions of employment which he is prepared to accept, shall not be required to show that he has a reasonable prospect of securing employment where those restrictions are reasonable in view of the person's physical or mental condition; and for the purposes of this subsection, regulations shall prescribe what evidence shall be required and that any costs incurred in obtaining such evidence shall not be borne by the claimant.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 47.
The requirements to be available for and actively seeking work should take account of the special problems that face disabled people. The Bill does not clearly describe what is meant by "available for work" or "actively seeking work". The criteria governing both are left to be defined in regulations. Without knowing exactly what people will be asked to do, it is impossible to know how disabled people might be disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Although subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 6 allow the Secretary of State to make provisions to ensure that disabled people are not asked to meet requirements that they cannot meet because of their disabilities, it is essential for that to be explicitly stated on the face of the Bill, and Amendment No. 46 does that.
As we do not know what exactly will be covered by "available for work", "actively seeking work" and the "jobseeker's agreement", it is difficult to describe circumstances in which disabled people may be unfairly penalised. Nevertheless, it is easy to envisage disabled people facing difficulties in meeting requirements such as those regarding the hours of work, their distribution throughout the working week, the number of job applications that they have to make —which may be limited very severely by the type of disability—the frequency of attendance at the Jobcentre, the method of approaching a prospective employer, the means of applying for a job and so on.
In the other place, the Minister seemed to indicate that disabled people who chose to sign on would not have to go through the availability test. In the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., debating the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations on 23rd March
838
this year, the Minister (Mr. Hague) referred to disabled people being able to restrict their availability for work. He continued:
"New regulation 17A has nothing to do with those arrangements. It relates solely to people who have been found incapable of work and therefore have no need to restrict their availability. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that people need only to show some connection with work or training for work to benefit from this new provision-to show that they can reasonably do some sort of work".—[Official Report, Commons; Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 23/3/95; col. 12.]
I have given the Minister notice of a number of questions. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to provide comprehensive answers.
First, can my noble friend clarify the effect that Regulation 17A has on people who are regarded as incapable of work but want to sign on? Does the new regulation merely allow someone to prove only that he is capable of work for the purposes of jobseeker's allowance but has no effect on the conditions of availability and actively seeking work? Or does it mean that once accepted as capable of work under this regulation, a disabled person would—as Mr. Hague seemed to suggest—have no need to restrict his availability? Can the Minister also clarify how the regulation will operate in practice, taking as an example someone who is registered blind? If that person is on incapacity benefit but wants to sign on, is it the Benefits Agency or the Employment Service which assesses whether he can use the regulation? If he has been in work and is made redundant and wants to sign on as unemployed, will he be accepted as capable of work by the Employment Service? Or will he first have to go to the Benefits Agency to be assessed as incapable of work, then have to satisfy one of the two conditions under Regulation I 7A in order to be treated as capable of work, then go to the Employment Service to explain that he is capable of work and then justify any restrictions on availability?
I turn to Amendment No. 47, which is grouped with this amendment. The purpose of Amendment No. 47 is to allow people who are appealing to a social security appeal tribunal against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit on the basis that they are incapable of work to be automatically treated as available and actively seeking work for jobseeker's allowance purposes while waiting for their appeal to be heard. I understand that the citizens advice bureau considers that there is an unavoidable contradiction in the position of a person who is simultaneously appealing to a social security appeal tribunal on the grounds that he is incapable of work while seeking to satisfy an employment officer that he is available for work and actively seeking work. Yet many people who have their incapacity benefit withdrawn will be placed in that position.
I consider that to be unsatisfactory, not only for sick or disabled people who run the risk of being refused jobseeker's allowance, but also for Employment Service staff, who will have the difficult and time-consuming task of assessing a group of people in poor health who may very well be claiming jobseeker's allowance for a limited period until their appeal is heard. My proposed

839
amendment thus has operational advantages as well as easing the position of sick and disabled people for the limited period of their appeal. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to which my name is also attached. I realise that perhaps I am speaking Canute-like against the tide of affairs this afternoon. But I again ask the Minister to agree to what is clear and reasonable being written into the Bill, thus helping all concerned later to understand the regulations. Perhaps, as I have made one allusion to my theatrical past this afternoon, I may be allowed to make another. I am better qualified than most to recommend belt and braces. In this case, I do so unreservedly.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I also rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Perhaps I may just advance one additional argument to those that he has already so eloquently marshalled. In the case of someone who is disabled, his ability to be able to contest a decision that he should be disallowed jobseeker's allowance is in many ways limited by the very fact of his mobility and the conditions under which he operates. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is trying—he is absolutely right to do so—once again to put on the face of the Bill conditions that would have to be recognised by employment officers when reaching their decisions.
Once again, doubtless we shall be told that regulations will take care of that. But this concerns a group of our very vulnerable fellow citizens to whom I believe we have a special obligation to try to get out into the open the conditions which determine whether or not benefit is to be disallowed. Again I plead with Ministers to consider very carefully whether this provision could be put on the face of the Bill, rather than once again asking us to rely on regulations in a situation which relates to some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We also should very much like to support the amendments so skilfully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Earlier in the Committee stage and at Second Reading the Minister said that people who failed the incapacity benefit test would be able to move seamlessly and smoothly on to JSA. Among other things, that is what these amendments probe. I am afraid that we have no such confidence.
Over a quarter of a million people will either lose invalidity benefit but fail to gain incapacity benefit or would have received it but will not do so in the future. The Government themselves expect something in the order of 140,000 people to appeal. They will appeal because, although they have some points for incapacity, they do not have enough points to qualify them for full incapacity benefit. I shall perhaps give some examples in a moment.
While those people are appealing their right to receive incapacity benefit, either they can refuse to sign the jobseeker's agreement—in which case they may get
840
income support with, attached to it, a 20 per cent. fine for the impertinence of appealing—or they will register for JSA, despite their reluctance, believing that it is the wrong benefit for them because jobseeker's allowance presumes the very capacity for work against which they are appealing. Naturally, they will feel that they are undermining their appeal. We fear that it will prejudge the case; the Minister assures us that it will not. We doubt those assurances. It must be right, in those circumstances, for the claimant to retain incapacity benefit until the appeal has been heard rather than accept either income support with a fine of 20 per cent. with the right of appeal, a penalty on appealing or, alternatively, to go for JSA which appears to undermine their case.
The experience on the ground leads us to believe that we are right in our fears. Last autumn there was a RADAR survey—one of the leading organisations for disabled people—which looked at 77 cut-off cases under the more generous invalidity benefit regime. It studied those 77 people who were denied invalidity benefit and therefore had to seek unemployment benefit on the grounds that they were capable of work. It found that of those 77 people, 37 per cent. (over one-third), having been refused invalidity benefit, had difficulty being accepted for UB on the grounds that they were not capable of work; 29 per cent. (over one-quarter) failed to obtain unemployment benefit.
The Minister tells us that there will be a smooth progression from incapacity benefit to JSA. Yet under the previous regime, when we had more generous benefits—invalidity benefit and UB—over one-quarter of the cases surveyed by RADAR were denied the first benefit and failed to obtain the second. What confidence can we have therefore in the Minister's assurance that it will be a seamless movement to one from the other, particularly under the new incapacity benefit test—Members of the Committee around the Chamber expressed their anxiety about this matter—on grounds of mental health?
Let me give an example. To qualify for incapacity benefit, one must acquire 10 points on the grounds of mental health; fewer than 10 points and one must go to JSA. Let us consider somebody with seven or eight points. Does he or she get upset by ordinary events so that it results in disruptive behavioural problems? That warrants two points. Do they become confused by conversations? That warrants two points. Can they look after themselves without help from others? That also warrants two points. Are they frightened to go out alone? That warrants only one point. The list produces a total of seven points for someone who is so easily upset that they exhibit disruptive behaviour, who becomes confused by conversation, who cannot look after himself without help from others and who is afraid to go out alone. They still do not qualify for incapacity benefit, yet we are told that they will nonetheless qualify for JSA; that they are capable of work. Does anyone believe that any employer can usefully employ somebody who becomes so upset by ordinary events that they exhibit disruptive behaviour; that they are confused by conversations; that they cannot look after themselves without help from others and are frightened to go out

841
alone? Yet that person will lose incapacity benefit and he told on those grounds that he or she is eligible for JSA.
Any reasonable Employment Service officer, any adjudication officer—and, I suspect, any employer—will think that such a person is not effectively capable of work. That was the experience under the old benefit system and we have no reason to believe that it will not he the experience under the new benefit system. Therefore, we ask the Minister to ensure that while the appeals are going through, there is a seamless move so that anybody currently in receipt of incapacity benefit does not lose it while they are appealing. All the information we obtained indicates that many people, because they are partially disabled, will not and cannot reasonably qualify for JSA. They will lose on the one because they do not qualify for the points, and lose on the other because there is clear evidence of their incapacity for work.
We are extremely worried that the Government may he placing thousands and tens of thousands of some of the most vulnerable people in our community in between two benefits, the first of which is being denied to them and for the second of which they cannot qualify. We need more than reassurances from the Government, in the light of our current experience, on the interface of such benefits. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I shall not repeat what I have said before, but we clearly have a problem here. I accept that the problem does not arise from the Minister's intentions. Clearly at the employment office end the system is not working. The employment officers are finding a large number of people coming in whom they do not feel that they can place. Something therefore must be done to ease the pressure on the Employment Service. Removing the appeal penalty would be one way; accepting a concept of limited availability would be another.
I appreciate that we cannot ask for communications between the Minister and the Employment Service. But is the Minister listening to what is coming back from rank and file employment officers on the ground regarding the effects of this Bill on their daily workload? Is he prepared to do anything to ease that workload? Something must be done because the Minister's intention is not being effected. If the Government can think of any better way than these amendments, I shall listen with a great deal of interest.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I should like to say a brief word in support of Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. I am particularly anxious that Amendment No. 47 should be accepted by the Minister. If it is not, the Bill as it stands is an inducement to schizophrenia.
The situation is that people who are appealing against a withdrawal of benefit must assert that they are incapacitated; by definition they must plead incapacity. Simultaneously they must satisfy an employment officer that they are fit for and seeking work. They cannot face both ways. The Bill as it stands means that they have no option but to do that. It is an impossible dilemma. If the amendments are accepted, it will provide a solution for them and for the Government.
842
The CAB informed many of the Members of the Committee this afternoon and gave us brilliant briefings. The CAB is clear that many people who have had incapacity benefit withdrawn will be placed in the position I stated. I accept its word and hope that the Minister will also and that he can do something about it. The CAB also said that it is afraid of a kind of ping-pong—its phrase not mine—with people in poor health being bounced between the Benefits Agency and the Jobcentre. I am sure that is right. People will go to one agency and be rejected; they will appeal to the other and again be rejected; and so the ping-pong will continue. Vulnerable people will suffer. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give careful and sympathetic consideration to these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I shall begin with Amendment No. 46. We understand the concerns which lie behind this amendment. It seeks to recognise that the circumstances of people who have a disability need special consideration. I would assure the Committee that we have taken the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the JSA labour market rules.
We intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person with a mental or physical condition to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other condition of employment which he is prepared to accept where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. I hope that goes some way towards answering the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
In the majority of cases, where a person wants to restrict his availability on health grounds, the employment officer will be able to accept the individual's assessment of the restrictions which are necessary. That is how the current provisions work in practice and we are not aware of any problems to which requirements to produce evidence have given rise. Employment Service staff in Jobcentres, where necessary with the support of disability specialists in placing and counselling teams, will be able to draw on their own knowledge and experience both on the impact of disabilities on occupations and on their effect on a person's prospects in their local labour market. In other cases, including those where the employment officer has any doubt about what is appropriate, the case will be referred to an adjudication officer. Depending on the circumstances, an adjudication officer may wish to seek evidence from the individual to demonstrate that his condition justifies the restrictions that he proposes to place on his availability.
Where a person is found capable of work under incapacity benefit, the disallowance notice will contain information on the functional areas in which limitations were identified. Provided that the claimant has consented, ES staff will be able to ask for this information when a claimant registers with them. That should normally be sufficient, if necessary, to verify the existence of a condition which restricts the type of work

843
a person can do. The adjudication officer can also ask to see the detailed report provided by the Benefits Agency Medical Service doctor in the incapacity assessment.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked a specific question relating to new regulation 17(a). I should like to give him a full answer. Regulation 17(a) provides for cases where a claimant is incapable of work under the new definitions introduced with incapacity benefit if he wishes to claim unemployment benefit, and in future JSA, rather than incapacity benefit. He can be treated as capable of work for JSA purposes if, despite his disabilities, he can still undertake some forms of work. The provision is therefore a helpful one as it ensures that disabled claimants are not debarred from JSA even if they could be eligible for incapacity benefit.
In answer to the specific questions raised by my noble friend, first, the regulation deals only with the question of capacity. Once the claimant qualifies for JSA under it, he has shown only that he can be treated as capable for work and must then still go on to agree availability arrangements and, of course, look for work. Secondly, given the type of claimant concerned, it is, however, quite clear that in virtually all cases there would need to be agreed restrictions on availability. These will be agreed exactly as for any other disabled claimant in line with the nature of the disability. It is worth remembering that in both these questions we are dealing with volunteers—people who are keen to find work and have chosen JSA. In those circumstances, we do not anticipate major difficulties agreeing sensible availability arrangements.
I shall now move on to other points raised. If a blind person on incapacity benefit decides to sign on, he will make a claim for JSA. The Employment Service adjudication officer must decide whether he satisfies the regulation, because we are looking at evidence which is concerned with the claimant's ability to undertake work. This is a labour market issue. As the regulation makes clear, the AO will take into account any recent work or training record. If there is none, he can take into account any other factors he considers appropriate in deciding whether the claimant has a reasonable chance of obtaining work despite the fact that he has disabilities which would normally allow him to claim benefit as incapable of work. It should not be necessary for a blind claimant who is made redundant to have to go separately to the Benefits Agency for an assessment of incapacity before his claim can be decided. Our intention is to operate procedures which are as simple as possible for claimants who want to seek work.
I return to the amendment. It would involve prescribing what evidence an adjudication officer may require. I cannot agree that that would help the jobseeker or the adjudication officer. Adjudication officers make their decisions on the basis of the facts available. He should not be constrained in the evidence he may seek; similarly, what evidence the claimant may wish to provide should be up to him.
I now turn to Amendment No. 47. I have made clear that we want to include people with disabilities in JSA, not exclude them. But this amendment could mean that people with disabilities or indeed anyone dissatisfied
844
and appealing against the incapacity test could get JSA even though they were not available for work or looking for it. That would be wrong. JSA is for jobseekers. People who are not capable of work will receive incapacity benefit.
Where a person appeals against a decision that he is capable of work, he will be able to claim JSA pending the outcome of his appeal if he makes himself available and looks for work. I appreciate that noble Lords may be concerned that that will prejudice his appeal. Let me reassure your Lordships. That will not be the case. The adjudicating authorities have made it clear in their judgments, and the chief adjudication officer has confirmed in published guidance, that making themselves available for work should not in any way prejudice their appeal.
There may be some people who do not wish to make themselves available for work pending their appeal. Existing invalidity benefit claimants, those in receipt of severe disability allowance and others who have been incapacitated for 28 weeks as of 12th April this year will be able to get their full income support personal allowance pending their appeal, if found capable at their first "all work" test. Any other person who first claims incapacity benefit on or after 13th April this year can also claim income support pending the appeal, but the personal allowance will be reduced by 20 per cent.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his answer, which has been long and involved. I should like to study it. Some more questions have come to mind during the course of this short debate. However, because I have not given my noble friend advance knowledge of them, he may prefer not to answer them now but to write to me.
At Report stage in the other place the Minister promised to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to consult the Secretary of State for Health about how to encourage general practitioners to provide medical evidence free of charge to claimants who need it for the purposes of placing restrictions on their availability. Can my noble friend tell me whether there has been any progress with those discussions? More generally on that point, will he look again at the possibility of paying for medical evidence of that kind?
During the debate on Clause 1 on 20th April my noble friend said that the current unemployment benefit provisions would be carried through into jobseeker's allowance, stating:
"The acceptability of restrictions on availability would depend on the individual demonstrating a reasonable prospect of securing work".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 626.]
However, I understand that current unemployment benefit rules states exactly the opposite. The word "not" may have been lost in the reporting. But as this is a most important issue, can my noble friend clarify the point? If restrictions that are placed on availability for work because of physical or mental condition are considered to be reasonable, does the claimant then have to demonstrate that he still has a reasonable prospect of finding work?
Lord Inglewood: The actively seeking work criterion relates to the work that is being sought. I hope that will

845
answer my noble friend's point. There has to be a reasonable prospect of obtaining the kind of work which is the subject of the agreement.
Without checking the matter myself, I would not want to make an unequivocal statement relating to whether the "not" had or had not been inserted in Hansard. I shall write to my noble friend.
My noble friend asked whether discussions had taken place between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security and, if so, what the outcome was. Currently, those discussions are under way, but they have not yet been completed. We cannot take this matter any further until we are clear what the outcome of the discussions will be.
Lord Swinfen: The question of whether the "not" should or should not be there is an extremely important one as it totally reverses the unemployment benefit rules if the Minister is reported accurately. I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that the matter is so important that between us we should find a method of it being reported in Hansard.
I thank my noble friend for his answers to my questions. I shall read them in full in Hansard and give them my consideration. I may well come back to these two matters at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert:
("() A person in regard to whom a question has arisen as to whether he is still available for and seeking work, is to be notified in writing that such a question has arisen and is to be given an opportunity to establish whether or not he is still available for and actively seeking work before a determination is made.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which seeks to take us back to the period when it was normal for a person about whom a question arose as to whether he was available for and seeking work—before he was, as it were, struck off—to be notified in writing so that he had some prior warning and so that he could come into the benefit office or the Jobcentre to explain the situation.
As I understand it, that provision was removed in 1992 as part of a general tightening up, seeking to make the actively seeking work test, first changed in 1989, more effective. The results were disappointing. So certain things were done, and the idea of sending the letter of warning was abolished. Together with many other things, the result has been that the number of disallowances has risen significantly.
It is not difficult to see why. To get rid of a simple administrative device of this kind is, in a very real sense, a denial of natural justice. The individual unemployed person may have had very good reasons for being unable to meet the activity or availability tests. The first knowledge that he or she would now receive in many cases is that the benefit has been disallowed whereas if a letter were sent it would presumably give some details of the way in which in future the unemployed claimant had fallen behind and had not carried out the provisions of the job agreement. Before the cancellation of the
846
benefit some chance would be available to make a case at the office. We have had many examples put forward by the CAB of what seem quite unreasonable denials to individuals and to the CAB of benefit where prior knowledge of the kind that used to be provided by a letter would have significantly helped the unemployed person. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: This amendment emerges with more significance than I first thought when I started to explore it. Perhaps I may take the Committee back for a moment to November 1992 when the Social Security Advisory Council drew attention to the effects of the warning letter that, until 1991, had been regularly issued, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, to those who were likely to find their benefit withdrawn.
At that time the advisory council pointed out in some very interesting figures that of 28,910 warning letters issued in the year 1989–90, in the vast majority of cases they were followed by action taken by the persons to whom the letters were addressed, pointing out that active steps were being taken to find work. Indeed, only 5,000 cases out of 28,910 were ever referred to an adjudication officer and of those only 1,768 were found to be justified. In other words, of nearly 29,000 warning letters under 2,000 cases were shown to be justified. So the warning letter had the exact effect that the Department of Employment at that time thought it would have. It led many of our fellow citizens to show reason why they should not have benefit withdrawn.
In December 1992 the noble Countess, Lady Mar, concerned about the findings of the Social Security Advisory Committee, led a debate on a Motion in this House in which she sought an assurance that if there were to be any major changes in the figures indicating that the abandonment of the warning letter had led to many more cases of disqualification, there would be further consideration given to the matter. In view of the number of instances during the progress of this Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I am sure for the best motives in the world, has told us to rely on the fact that employment officers will treat regulations with due sympathy and consideration, I would like to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who responded to the noble Countess's concerns as follows:
"On the basis of the evidence before us now, we are satisfied with the desirability of those regulations. But, if there were further evidence that these regulations are catching those whom it is not intended to catch and not dealing with those who consciously and deliberately fail actively to seek work, obviously we would then reconsider".—[Official Report, 1/12/92; col. 1332.]
That was on 1st December 1992. From that time until now the number of warning letters has dropped dramatically. In 1990–91, the year after that in which the Social Security Advisory Council drew the attention of noble Lords to the issue, the number of letters of warning issued was 37,000. Of those, most led to no disqualification. In the following year, 1991–92, 25,097 warning letters were issued and of those less than 2,000 led to disqualification: in other words, less than 1:10.
However, last year 9,000 letters of warning were issued and there were 113,000 instances of disqualification from benefit. So it is not unreasonable

847
to say that as the number of letters of warning declined the number of cases of disqualification increased. I do not seek to draw a direct correlation but the figures seem sufficient to justify a sense of real disturbance.
There is one other argument to explain why I believe that this amendment is one of the more important ones before the Committee. The submissions for adjudication on the issue as to whether benefit should be withdrawn, according to the annual performance agreement, depend on an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available or actively seeking or willing to accept work.
I draw the attention of the Committee to the phrase, "an arguable case". Perhaps I should not risk saying this in the hearing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, a former Lord Chancellor, although I believe he may agree with me. Normally, an arguable case is one where the argument is presented on both sides—in other words, the prosecution implies a defence. In this case the defence cannot be advanced because the defendant does not even know that a prosecution is being brought. As stated by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the first the claimant knows is that his or her request has been disallowed without he or she being able to advance reasons to the contrary.
What makes the matter even more serious, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is that on this issue turn the assurances given us in good faith by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He told us that the set of regulations about which we were concerned in Amendments Nos. 43A and others, as regards reasons why people may not genuinely be available for work, ranging from the need for caring for their children or for an elderly relative or a religious objection such as not being willing to work on a Sunday, would be carefully taken into account in regulations. But if the person so affected does not even have the opportunity to argue that the reason they were not available for work or not actively seeking it was because they were not willing to work on Easter Sunday for religious reasons or they were unable to work in a particular job because an elderly relative had to be cared for, then what possible weight can be placed on a genuine promise that the regulations will reflect those needs?
For all those reasons I believe this to be an amendment which goes to the very heart of the rights of the individual citizen. The more I become familiar with the Bill the more profoundly concerned I am about its implications.
Lord Inglewood: Let me assure the Committee that under the JSA the jobseeker will receive full information about his or her position. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. Under current practice when a doubt is identified on a claim for unemployment benefit the claimant is notified in writing that the claim is being referred to an adjudication officer for a decision. The form explains the adjudication process in general terms. A further leaflet is available containing more details on each of the benefit rules. The claimant is invited to ask at the ES office for help with points not covered in either leaflet. We shall be following similar practices in JSA.
848
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, if we could see chapter and verse of instances where the system has broken down completely, that would enable us to see what we could do to put matters right. Another point raised by the noble Baroness related to Sunday working. One of the characteristics of the jobseekers' agreement is that it should be able to identify such points at that stage, thereby getting around the practical problems which, if they have occurred, must be extremely distressing and something that we would not want to condone.
I am puzzled by the second part of the amendment. If the noble Earl's concern is that the jobseeker must be able to put his case, let me reassure the Committee. If the adjudication officer has any questions about the jobseeker's case, he can and does ask the jobseeker to supply more information before he makes his decision. As we may discuss later, there is a system of transfer from the first adjudication officer to a second adjudication officer at the claimant's wish, if he is unhappy. Similarly, both before and after a decision, if more evidence or information comes to light, an adjudication officer must take account of the evidence and may revise his decision as regards the award accordingly.
But we must be careful about the perverse effects of the second part of the amendment. If it is intended to enable a jobseeker to be given a second chance to be available or to seek work actively in a given period, that would significantly weaken the incentive effect of the availability and actively seeking work condition.
Jobseekers must be available for employment and take steps to look for employment every week. Those are the conditions of entitlement to JSA, and we shall be seeking, through the jobseekers' agreement and in other ways, to make them as clear as possible to all claimants. If the jobseeker does not take the necessary steps, or has not been available for employment in any week, the employment officer must be able to refer the question on the facts of the case. He should not be hindered by considerations of what the jobseeker might do in the future, before the adjudication decision.
I should have referred to the letter at the outset of my remarks. The letter merely enabled the claimant not actively to seek work until he was warned to do so. Active seeking is a clear condition of benefit. The required steps are made clear to the individual from the start of his claim. Such a written warning in that regard should therefore be unnecessary.
Earl Russell: The Minister objects to the idea that the jobseeker should have a second chance. Is it not proverbial that a dog is allowed one bite? Why should the jobseeker be treated worse than a dog?
Lord McCarthy: I am not sure that I understand what the Minister is saying. If I understand him aright, he is saying that it is perfectly all right because we do it anyway, and the amendment is merely declaratory of the existing situation:
"A person in regard to whom a question has arisen as to whether he is still available for and seeking work".
is, in fact, notified in writing. That is not quite the same way, but he is notified in writing:

849
"that such a question has arisen and is to be given an opportunity to establish whether or not he [or she] is still available for and actively seeking work".
The Minister seems to be saying that we do it anyway and yet somehow, as the noble Baroness said, these letters are no longer sent. So the difference is that the decision is taken first. Is not that what the Minister is saying? The officer in the Jobcentre decides that the person is no longer fulfilling the tests, and the benefit stops. Subsequently he writes to the adjudication officer and then to the unfortunate unemployed person and says, "The benefit has gone, but I have written to the adjudication officer". Of course we know that in certain circumstances if the individual is vulnerable and in hardship, a lower rate of benefit can be paid. But if he is not, then no benefit is paid, and in the meantime what the unemployed person knows is that, subject to review by the adjudication officer, the benefit is stopped, and he is considered to be not actively seeking work. That is not the same thing at all. It is entirely different. What is wrong with having our amendment?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, perhaps I may ask just one other question. It was not clear to me, although I recognise that the Minister is doing everything he can to help us, what was the position with regard to warning letters. There was a lack of clarity, at least in my mind, for which I apologise, as to when the claimant is supposed to read leaflets and when he receives a letter.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that there is a real difference between receiving a personal letter and being expected to understand a leaflet. Having had the experience of being a Minister at the Department of Employment, I have to say that many of the leaflets are not completely clear. In Committee, we have talked on occasion about people with learning difficulties, people who may not have English as their first language and those who may not find it easy to read.
A person who is alerted by a letter will probably seek advice and help from a CAB or someone else. That is something that he will not know how to do if he is expected to find a leaflet.
As regards the objection that the noble Viscount raised about the danger—and I understand it well—that a warning letter might arrive some months after someone has started drawing benefit and that the person concerned only then takes action, I appreciate that that might well apply to someone who was anxious not to take work and who wanted to live on benefit. It is not impossible for the Department of Employment to send that letter after, let us say, a month or six weeks. I do not see why it has to wait four, five or six months to validate the noble Viscount's comments.
Lord Inglewood: I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution which was especially valuable bearing in mind, as she explained, her experience in the department
850
in which I now have the privilege to be working. Just a small point en passant: would that I were a noble Viscount. I am not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I have upgraded the Minister.
Lord Inglewood: There are two separate letters here. We do not send a warning letter to people telling them to start active seeking, but we send a letter to the claimant advising him that the matter is being referred to the adjudication officer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the letter is being sent at the point at which the employment officer is referring to the adjudication officer, that means that there is a presumption that benefit will be stopped simultaneously with the sending out of the letter, rather than the letter being sent out in advance saying, "We are minded, and if there is good reason why we should not refer this", with the implication that the benefit will be stopped, which surely is the just way.
Lord Inglewood: I understand that the position is as described by the noble Baroness. It is important to be clear that in this case the benefit is payable so long as the criteria are satisfied; in other words, so long as the person concerned is in fact actively seeking work, Therefore, that is a matter of fact and not of opinion so far as concerns the point in time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am taken aback to be told that the position is as I have described it. Does that mean the Minister is saying that a letter will be sent in advance to any JSA claimant saying that there is some doubt about his or her availability for work and that unless that doubt can be satisfied there will he a referral, and that any problem of loss of benefit will begin only if the claimant has failed to respond to the letter, failed to meet that doubt and as a result the matter goes through to the adjudication officer.
Lord Inglewood: As I understand it, the benefit is payable for the duration of the time that the person is actively seeking work. I believe that I am right in saying that, if there is anxiety that the person may not be actively seeking work, the employment officer will advise the jobseeker at the same time as referring the matter to the adjudication officer—
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What happens to benefit during that time?
Lord McCarthy: During the time in which the letter is being sent and the adjudication officer is being informed, which may be two or three weeks, will the benefit continue to be paid?
Lord Inglewood: I am now in a position to reply. The benefit will be suspended. If the adjudication officer agrees, the benefit is disallowed; if not, the benefit is paid.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the Minister is somewhat confused. We are not talking about a situation between adjudication and appeal. We are

851
talking about a situation in which doubt arises between the employment officer and the adjudication officer. I believe that the Minister is confusing the two situations.
Lord Inglewood: I do not believe that I am—
Lord McCarthy: The Minister used the word "suspended". During the period in which the letters are going backward and forward to the unemployed person and to the adjudication officer, will the benefit be suspended?
Lord Inglewood: That is as I understand the position—
Lord McCarthy: It is not the same because before the rules were changed the benefit continued to be paid in that period.
Lord Inglewood: I am afraid that I honestly do not know. Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about people who might have difficulty in speaking English. As I said previously, one of the characteristics of the jobseeker's agreement is that there is an interview between the employment officer and the jobseeker. Therefore, the position can be explained before the process gets under way. To some extent, that will go towards meeting the point which the noble Baroness made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am sure that he will sympathise when I say that it does not fully meet the point. If the original jobseeker's agreement was an open, careful and detailed discussion of the difficulties and possibilities of employment, I fully accept what he said. However, one of the points that we on this side of the Committee have been making—and not without some awareness about how these things occasionally work in real life—is that the agreement may not sufficiently allow for the disabilities with which the particular individual must cope. That person may genuinely seek to find work but cannot because of the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, or because he or she is not attractive to employers. Benefit will be disallowed. The earlier situation in which someone could come forward before benefit was taken away and say, "Look, I have tried 20 employers and they have all told me that they don't want someone who lisps", offered a great advantage.
I believe that the Bill will lead us into more bureaucratic tangles and appeals at some expense to the public purse than would a simple decision to return to letters of warning. That would provide the Post Office with a little money and give the Civil Service and those concerned in the long period of exploring such issues a more efficient administration of the Bill.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may tell a story which I hope no one will take personally, because it is not so intended. When I was an undergraduate I remember Mr. Hugh Dalton speaking and being asked what was the best degree for politics. He replied, "a second", because the first-class mind was too conscious of the possibility of error. I thought at the time that he was wrong and, having listened
852
to the debate, I am sure that he was wrong. The possibility of error is the hub of the whole discussion.
The suspension of benefit may happen in error and it may cause gross hardship. One case, for example, involved a man no longer able to pay for electricity with all the food in his freezer, on which he hoped to live for two weeks, going bad. Another case involved someone who had to travel 30 miles to work without public transport. He relied on a lift from his mate, who later left the job. He was then unable to get to work and was disentitled to benefit on the ground that he was voluntarily unemployed.
Were a warning letter to be sent to the person in that position it would be very easy for the misunderstanding to be cleared up before the gross hardship of a fortnight's suspension from benefit, and with nothing to live on, was imposed. The possibility of error is the hub of the whole issue and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl is right. I wish to return in particular to his second example about the friend who drove the car and who left the job and left the other party high and dry. That is exactly the kind of incident that the jobseeker's agreement ought to take into account. It is a characteristic of the system that there is regular contact between the employment officer and the jobseeker. A change in circumstance is intended to be part of the flexibility of a jobseeker's agreement. The agreement can be adjusted and matters can be resolved in that way.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister told us that he does not know the answer to the question and I wish to know whether he can tell us the answer subsequently. We understand that previously a warning letter was sent to the person who was thought not to be actively seeking work. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that at one time those letters were running at the rate of 37,000 per year, while the number of disallowances were 4,700 per year. Now the letters are running at the rate of 2,000 per year and the number of disallowances is 14,772 per year. Those two facts may be connected. That is the situation as we understand it and that is what the amendment seeks to prevent. It seeks to create a situation in which letters are received in advance.
The Minister described a situation in which a decision is taken by the employment officer that someone is not actively seeking work. Of course, the person can protest and go to an adjudication officer. In order to put that process into action, two letters are sent; one to the adjudication officer and one to the poor unemployed person who is no longer actively seeking work. In the meantime, that person receives no money. Is that right?
Lord Inglewood: Needless to say, I shall write to the noble Lord having made sure that I am right in my description. I understand that, in the circumstances that he has described, the benefit is suspended. Two separate letters have entered into our discussions. First, there is the possibility of the warning letter which at one time was sent. That process was discontinued because it was often

853
used as a trigger for people to go out and actively to seek work when hitherto they had not been doing so, even though it was part of a condition of benefit—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is that not what the Minister wants? To suggest that the warning letter was effective surely is exactly what the Minister wants. Or is he using this as an excuse to cut benefit rather than get people back into work?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The 1992 report of the Social Security Advisory Committee made it clear that a great majority of cases were satisfactorily resolved after the warning letter had been sent. That is why we believe that the Government would be saved money and trouble if warning letters were again sent out.
Lord Inglewood: I understand the argument both noble Baronesses are putting forward. However, one is not meant to wait for the warning letter before one actively seeks work. One is meant to be actively seeking work ab initio and one should not wait for a warning letter to trigger that. That is the point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister's reply really will not do. It is not a question of waiting for a warning letter to trigger a person into seeking work. A person may well believe that he is meeting the actively seeking work requirement. The first that he knows that he is not doing so is when he receives a letter from the employment officer to tell him that his benefit is being suspended while the matter is referred to an adjudication officer.
Lord Inglewood: The point is that, with the jobseeker's agreement in place, much of the potential misunderstanding will be ruled out.
Earl Russell: The Minister seems to be saying that the Government withdrew the warning letter because it worked. I am reminded again of the first Lord Burghley's description of the High Commission: that it was rather a device to seek for offenders than to reform any. The Government's policy is beginning to sound rather the same.
Lord McCarthy: It is time for me to withdraw the amendment: it has had a very good run. The Minister has given an off-the-cuff answer. I hope that he will give us a full answer in writing. We want the Minister to say exactly how this matter was dealt with, how it is dealt with now and how it will be dealt with when the legislation comes into force. I hope that he can find a better answer than that he has given this evening. That answer implies that the Government would rather have a system that does not work than pay for a few weeks people who are not actively seeking work. It is a dreadful thought that the Government are prepared to break any system in order not to waste money. In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall return to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): I should point out that if Amendment No. 50 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 51.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 54, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 56 or 57.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, leave out lines 27 to 30.
The noble Earl said: I am sorry that it should have fallen to me to move such a particularly contentious amendment right on the hour of dinner. It concerns the clause in the Bill which allows for acts to be disregarded—that means, actively looking for work to be ignored—in circumstances connected with behaviour or appearance.
The Government are attempting to devise divine intentions from a single outward act. I admit that there may be people not actively seeking work who use a scruffy and unprepossessing appearance as a device to that end. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, quoted such a case, Since that was based on the claimant's own confession, when he did not know that anyone of any substance was listening, I take it seriously.
To go directly from the outward appearance to a presumption of the intention which leads to a loss of benefit is not sensible. Again, it is extremely difficult to define intention in legislation. It is an individual matter and must be tackled individually. If the Government wish to get into trouble for a few weeks, they should go in for defining dress codes. That way lies nothing but trouble.
The problem with prescribing dress codes is that they change and while they are in the process of changing you start prescribing restrictions which are not acceptable. I take an example of a dress code in the process of changing. The court circular in 1851 said:
"Since no ladies will be present, trousers will be worn".
The noble and learned Lord, who is not at present on the Woolsack, were he here, would have been the first to understand what was really the purport of that remark.
One need think only of the problems in relation to Sikhs being required to wear crash helmets in the 1960s from which the Government very sensibly backed off, and the problems that the French are having as regards the enforcement of headscarves in schools. There is endless scope for trouble.
When I wrote to the Minister about this matter on 27th November, I quoted the question of women being forbidden to wear trousers. I wondered then whether I was being rather old hat. It turns out that I was not. Recently, I received the latest report from the Equal Opportunities Commission. It was taking to court in Stoke on Trent the case of a woman who worked for the town's urban transport committee and who was dismissed for wearing trousers. Fortunately, the authority admitted that that was wrong and agreed an out of court settlement. But the case illustrates the endless problems which the Government may face if they go down the road of allowing regulations to prescribe dress codes.
I said of this clause at Second Reading that it was possible for an employment officer to disentitle someone's benefit if he did not like his face. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, shook his head at that point. I waited with great interest for the Government's reply to hear why he was shaking his head. I never did hear. If he can tell me this evening, I shall listen with great interest.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider the case of Mr. Graham Gooch. Mr. Gooch has a fancy for wearing what is known nowadays as designer stubble. One could regard that—and I can imagine an employment officer regarding it—as evidence that Mr. Gooch was not actively seeking work whereas I can think of no one in the whole of the English cricket team who is more notorious for his addiction to hard work.
Therefore, the attempt to deduce the intention from the appearance may be very gravely mistaken. It also gives an employment officer the sort of power which it is not wise to give junior functionaries—indeed, which it is not wise to give to anyone. I should not be at all content for anyone to have that power over me. Where there is a personal relationship, there are personal feelings. Where there are personal feelings, there may be hostility. Where there is hostility, an unjust decision may be taken. That is why I believe that it is gravely mistaken to delegate power to take those decisions right down to the employment officer instead of having them taken by the adjudication officer who has no personal relationship with the claimant and who can take the decision merely on the basis of the facts. I should much rather that he were asked to consider such evidence which bears on the question of intention and to have the intention judged on the whole of the claimant's record.
If the Government go down the road I have described they will be treated mercilessly by the tabloid press. Some of that may be undeserved but not all of it. This amendment is designed to save the Government from that unpopularity. If they do not wish to be saved that is their right. But it is rather unfair on the claimants who will be deprived of benefits in the process. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Inglewood is probably too young to remember the days of the teddy boy. As a rule, teddy boys had a very poor reputation, 95 per cent. of which was totally undeserved. Of course, there were one or two tearaways but the rest of those who were teddy boys and who wore long greased hair, sideburns and what I considered to be rather unusual clothing, did so because they thought it was the height of fashion.
There are people in this country today who believe they are the height of fashion with coloured hair and odd bits of metal sticking out of their ears, noses and, indeed, lips. It is their right to dress in that way. It may not be suitable for every job, but it may well be perfectly all right and acceptable in other employment. The Government must be extremely careful about how they deal with the problem. They should not give
856
employment officers the opportunity to exercise their own personal prejudices to the detriment of those seeking work.
Lord McCarthy: The best quotation regarding the amendment that I know is one from Miss Ann Widdecombe who said, "If he goes to an interview but presents himself in such a way that he negates the value of going, we can issue a direction and take that into account". One can see how that would happen. Of course, it would not happen if the poor person had a job. That is what happens to someone who keeps coming back to the employment office and keeps saying that he is doing his best. You cannot get him because he is inactive or because he is available, so you say, "Well, look what you look like! That's why you can't get a job". Indeed, we have all said it to all sorts of people. But, fortunately, we were not in charge of an employment office and we could not deny benefit. That is the power that the Government want to give.
Let us be clear on another factor. We are not saying that people in employment offices should not give advice because mothers and fathers give advice, as indeed do tutors; for example, they say, "If you don't get your hair cut, you won't get a job". But that is advice and of course you should give advice. However, you should not make threats, and you should not be able to say to someone, "Clean yourself up, or you won't be actively seeking work". Only a government who are totally obsessed with the fact that there must be jobs out there somewhere will go in for such considerations.
Lord Inglewood: As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, the context of the debate is a definition of the phrase, "actively seeking employment". As I explained, we regard it as axiomatic that jobseekers should keep in touch with the labour market. That is why the requirement to seek work actively is a condition of entitlement to JSA. The rules, as we have seen, will be contained in regulations under Clause 6. Clause 6(3) (a) and (b) elaborate on our intentions for the regulations which will be drawn up under Clause 6. Like Amendment No. 50, this amendment seeks to remove that clarification.
It is surely right that if a jobseeker undermines his chances of receiving a particular employment by, for example, his behaviour—and that is one of the aspects covered in the clause; it is not merely the way people dress—and is abusive to an employer at a job interview, he should not be able to claim attending that interview as an active jobsearch step.
Lord McCarthy: Can the Minister say how the employment officer will know that that is what happened? He will only have the employer's word for it.
Lord Inglewood: The message will come back to the employment officer who will then, no doubt, make inquiries of the person concerned as to what happened. However, if I may say so, that does not seem to me to be a very strong point in the context of the debate.
I turn now to what will not be done under the clause. Dress codes will not be established. Indeed, we return to the fact that we are talking about actively seeking work. As has already been described, in certain circumstances,

857
for certain kinds of jobs which the person may be in the business of actively trying to acquire, a particular form of dress may be appropriate. Indeed, the designer stubble of Mr. Graham Gooch seems, in his case, and rather like Samson and his hair, to make him play cricket very well.
However, the main point—and it is one that I believe has been recognised by Members of the Committee on the opposite side—is that one's appearance does matter. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was talking about the old days of the Court Circular, but the modern word for those opposite is "Folletting", is it not? In other words, one has to "Follett" oneself properly so that one looks the part.
The regulations will not go into detail about specific actions which will negate jobsearch. The other matter that I should like to make clear is that decisions will be taken by adjudication officers on the facts of the case.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree with me that the majority of jobseekers are genuinely committed to looking for work, and that they make every effort to try to find a job. They would not dream of undermining their chances of doing so by their behaviour or other such things. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord McCarthy: I am much obliged. The debate is becoming curiouser and curiouser. If the employment officer was not there, the adjudication officer could not possibly have been there. Therefore, how would he know what to say?
Lord Inglewood: It is quite possible to form an objective opinion on the basis of the facts as they have been reported. That is the basis of the adjudication process. The way in which such matters are determined is that the information is, in the first instance, sent to the adjudication officer—and I understand that this is the way in which the system works currently—and the process of appeal moves on from that point.
Baroness Seear: What sort of information will be sent to the adjudication officer? Will a colour photograph be sent or will they just say that a chap turned up with a ring in his nose? For Heaven's sake! What will be sent to the adjudication officer?
Lord Inglewood: I should have thought that it was quite simple. Once what has happened has been established, an opinion can be formed on the consequences that flow from it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On a more serious point, I believe that we established on the previous day of Committee that, in some cases, an employer might have 200 applicants for a job. He will not interview, perhaps, more than a dozen of them and he will not actually see all of them. The remainder will be rejected. A person may then say, "I am actively seeking work", but the officer will say, "No you're not, because of your appearance". What would constitute evidence for that?
Lord Inglewood: It is quite clear. In such circumstances, appearance will not have entered into the matter because the person would not have reached that stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that only when an employment officer has had verified
858
information back from a potential employer that the reason he has refused someone a job is because of his appearance would that serve as a possible basis for disqualification from jobseeker' s allowance?
Lord Inglewood: The adjudication officer will be able to seek evidence from the claimant, the employer and the employment officer. He will need to make a decision on the facts of the case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What evidence will he have from the employment officer, as opposed to that from the employer or the claimant?
Lord Inglewood: Depending on the facts of the case, he may have none.
There are, unfortunately, a few supposed jobseekers who are not prepared to put their best efforts into finding work and who are even prepared to sabotage their chances of finding employment. We want to ensure that people in that minority group cannot, on the one hand, undermine their chances of getting a job and, on the other, claim that the very activities that they have undermined are active jobsearch steps. That is why Clause 6(3) (b) makes it clear that regulations under Clause 6 will provide that actions that would otherwise be active jobsearch steps will be disregarded if they are undermined by the jobseeker. Amendment No. 54 seeks to remove that new and important provision. I urge Members of the Committee to reject it.
Earl Russell: The Minister has attempted to throw "Folletting" at us. I can only reply with my favourite quotation from Brakenbury in Richard III:
"With all this, my Lords Myself, have naught to do".
Nevertheless, I accept what the Minister said; namely, that appearance does matter. Indeed, I believe that every parent in this Chamber accepts that fact. However, I also believe that every parent in this Chamber is well aware, as I am, that if one tells one's children that they are not keen on working because of their appearance and one then looks at what they do, one finds that one was absolutely, totally and unjustly wrong. It is that possibility of error which it seems to me is not allowed for in the regulation-based approach that we are discussing. There is simply no allowance for the possibility that one single item of appearance—or, indeed, one aspect of behaviour—may be supposed to be designed to avoid work when in fact it is no such thing.
I know people who hold highly responsible and senior posts who go about wearing earrings with a punk hairstyle. If I looked at those people, I would immediately think that they were not seeking work. However, I could not possibly be more wrong. Indeed, they are holding down highly responsible and onerous positions of a sort that I would not envy anyone. It is surely a subject in which we must know that the possibility of prejudice is infinite and the possibility of prejudice face to face is particularly clear.
I simply cannot accept the attempt to go down the road of taking one single overt act as being evidence of intention. Indeed I think the actual words of the Bill rise against the Minister, for the Bill provides for acts,

859
"to be disregarded in … circumstances … connected with … behaviour or appearance".
That means that actual jobsearch activities may be ruled completely out of order and may not count because you do not like the person's appearance.
The Minister shakes his head, but how can the Bill mean anything other than that? I have read this clause a good many times by now and I cannot get any other meaning out of it. If there is any explanation on how it comes to have another meaning, I would be extremely grateful to hear it. It is attempting to make the single act the test. That, I have already argued today, is a profoundly mistaken approach to legislation. The intention should be based on a hearing involving all the person's conduct. But since I would much rather return to this issue with the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee available to the Chamber, I think it would be inappropriate for the Committee to reach a decision tonight. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again in one hour at half-past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 to 8.30 p.m.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("or omissions").
The noble Lord said: We have brought forward this essentially technical amendment in order to clarify our intentions for regulations which will be drawn up under Clause 6 and which are spelt out in more detail in subsection (3) (b).
First, we propose to extend in the regulations the actions which count as a step towards meeting the actively seeking employment test to include steps which can improve a jobseeker's employability. At present only steps which amount to actual job search are specified. Under JSA actions such as drawing up a CV or taking action to improve jobsearch skills will count as a step in actively seeking employment. I am sure that the Committee will welcome that.
Secondly, a jobseeker who deliberately undermines his chances of receiving particular employment by, for example, being abusive to an employer at a job interview, will negate that step. Clause 6(3) (b) makes clear that that is the intention of regulations to be drawn up under Clause 6. It is surely right that a jobseeker who undermines his chances of finding work in such a way should not then be able to claim that by attending the interview where the abusive behaviour took place he was actively seeking employment.
Taken together these two changes amount to balanced and fair improvements. On reflection, however, we feel that it is not necessary to include reference to omissions in Clause 6(3) (b). While it is certainly our intention to disregard acts which would otherwise help the jobseeker to satisfy the condition but which have effectively
860
destroyed the chance of his being offered a job, we cannot envisage any circumstances where it would be necessary or desirable to disregard omissions. I therefore urge the Committee to accept this government amendment, which simply removes a redundant word from Clause 6(3) (b). I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: In so far as we understand what the Minister is doing we do not see much wrong with it. Therefore, we do not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert:
("() provide for voluntary work by unemployed people to be recorded as a positive outcome at any Restart interview carried out by an employment officer.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58 is grouped with Amendment No. 84 and I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Norrie to deal with that amendment. The amendments are similar.
I am sure that we all recognise the importance to unemployed people of undertaking voluntary work and the benefits they derive from so doing while actively seeking full-time employment. Voluntary work is helpful in enabling them to keep in touch with the labour market. It also provides them with an opportunity to maintain and develop their existing skills, and possibly to learn new skills, while looking for a job. It maintains their self-esteem and confidence in their own ability. Eventually, the reference they obtain from the voluntary organisation, which they can show to a potential employer, giving proof of their commitment, timekeeping, reliability and so on, is of enormous benefit and greatly enhances their chances of obtaining a job.
The National Association of Volunteer Bureaux has many examples of how volunteering helps in jobseeking. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples from the many that have been sent to me. The first example is the case of a former soldier who was unable to find work. He started to do odd jobs for the elderly, arranged by a volunteer bureau. After obtaining a first aid certificate he became active with the St. John Ambulance service and then obtained a paid job as driver/handyman at a day centre for the elderly.
In another case a young man made redundant from his potential post, despairing of finding work, offered to do some driving for his local volunteer bureau. Before long he was helping the bureau with marketing, publicity and so on. He is now the paid manager of a large local voluntary organisation. The organisation says that it is difficult to believe that that confident young man could ever have felt the despair that he described. He is proud to tell of how volunteering kept him sane.
I have first-hand knowledge within my own family of how voluntary work helps in times of unemployment. One of my sons has twice been made redundant. I witnessed his despondency and despair during the difficult times when he was striving to find other employment. One could see the traumatic effect that had not only on him but on his wife and family. However, undertaking voluntary work, keeping his mind occupied and using his skills, kept him going. It was of immense

861
help to him and in no way detracted from his efforts to gain employment, which I am thankful to say he has now achieved. His considerable ability is again recognised and fully used.
It is because of that first-hand knowledge and all the evidence that I have received of how people have attained work in all sectors of employment that I wish to see voluntary work for unemployed people recorded as a positive outcome at any Restart interview. Although the Department of Employment is, in general, sympathetic to unemployed people undertaking voluntary work, I feel that at the moment it shows a somewhat negative approach. There is fear among the voluntary organisations that, unless volunteering is recognised as a positive outcome, some local employment offices will continue to create difficulties. Jobseekers may well be told that they must undertake voluntary work only during the evenings and must spend all the rest of their time seeking paid work, whether or not much is available.
Such people often become depressed by their lack of success and are the people least likely to obtain employment when it becomes available. In some cases unemployed persons may be too scared to undertake voluntary work for fear that they will not attain a positive outcome from a Restart interview, and as a result will have their benefit withdrawn.
In reply to a letter from Mrs. Winbury, who is Vice-Chairman of the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux, my honourable friend Mrs. Widdecombe, who is the Minister responsible for JSA in another place, points out that a volunteer is allowed 48 hours' notice before he has to start a job if one becomes available. The regulations for actively seeking employment also take account of a person's voluntary work when an assessment is made as to whether that person has met the conditions. Mrs. Widdecombe goes on to say:
"The jobseeker's agreement will provide an opportunity for a jobseeker to focus his job search activities on his own circumstances and needs. It will set out the jobseeker's availability and any restrictions which he wishes to place on that and the steps he will take to find work. A jobseeker will be able to include voluntary work in his agreement. We do not, however, intend that voluntary work shall count as a step towards actively seeking as we believe the existing concessions strike the right balance".
I cannot agree that the existing concessions strike the right balance. I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to include voluntary work as a positive outcome. No extra costs should be involved. In fact the reverse could well be the case.
The Government recognise the importance of voluntary work. All the available evidence indicates the value to the unemployed of undertaking voluntary work. It positively assists them in their quest for paid employment. In no way is voluntary work detrimental to their actively seeking employment. I believe that it must be right to regard voluntary employment as a positive outcome at any Restart interview. I implore the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment from my own experience. An acquaintance of mine who was unemployed obtained voluntary work in a care centre.
862
With the new skills that he learned, he ended up, first, in part-time employment, and then in full employment. Voluntary work can give the unemployed person not only new skills but can also inculcate the habit of going to work, very often at a regular time. From my own experience of unemployment some years ago, it is a habit which is extremely easy to lose.
There is nothing detrimental to the Bill in the amendment. Even if my my noble friends do not like the exact wording, I hope that they will accept the principle underlying it. If they do not accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, perhaps they will come back with their own amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches support Amendment No. 58, and Amendment No. 84 with which it is grouped. We all know that the best way to obtain a job is already to have one. In other words, remaining attached to the labour market is the best way to stay in the labour market. Part-time work, which may not be financially rewarding, enables the individual to remain in contact with the labour market. Voluntary work is part-time work which, although not financially rewarding, allows individuals that experience. For many it is a highly appropriate way to re-enter work. It is a form of on-the-job training, often more appropriate and more socially valuable than many of the training schemes run by the Employment Service or TECs. I do not believe that any noble Lords who have knowledge or experience, either themselves or within the family, of volunteering will deny that the experience of volunteering is more valuable to many people as a pathway to work than anything formally provided by government under their auspices which counts as a positive outcome.
We strongly support the amendment. At present the only positive outcome regarded as acceptable by the Employment Service is a job offer, the loss of benefit or a referral to an employment scheme run by the Employment Service or a TEC. We believe that that is not only too narrow but downright perverse. Only government-sponsored schemes count. Those of charities and other bodies do not, even though they are more valuable, more relevant and often a more effective pathway to work.
What happens if an unemployed person does voluntary work on a regular and reliable basis? Some of these points have been made but they bear emphasis. First, such a person is motivated to go into the office or workplace to construct a structured commitment to work in a routine and reliable way. Old skills are polished and new skills learned. It may mean the introduction to information technology required to organise a car driving service for hospitals or using driving skills to take vulnerable people to hospital. In the process those involved learn of salaried job opportunities; it is the voluntary way in.
Such volunteering is socially useful. Half the population undertake some volunteering. One-third volunteer on a regular basis. Their informal contribution to the society of which they are members is at least as valuable as many structured training courses. The majority of those who volunteer are in work precisely because they fear losing benefit.

863
The National Association of Volunteer Bureaux has dozens of instances, some of which have been quoted, of volunteering contributing towards the rebuilding the confidence of the unemployed on the one hand, and people who are volunteers having to withdraw from voluntary work for fear of losing their benefit.
Perhaps I may give examples. A former soldier, unable to find work, volunteered to work with the elderly. He took a first aid course. He is now the driver handyman at a day centre for the elderly. Nearer to my home, a neighbour's daughter who volunteered to hear children read at her local primary school is now a welfare assistant at that school. A young man, a volunteer at the coffee shop of a hospital for the mentally disabled, was apprehensive about the work but enjoyed the volunteering and is now training as a mental health nurse. That young man is my nephew. Without that voluntary work, he would not have found his way into not only a fulfilling career but paid and properly organised work.
I hope that the Minister can assure us tonight that he will take on board the substance of the amendments. If he does not do so, he is sending a signal that we in the House of Lords do not value volunteering, not only for the social value it offers those at the receiving end but for the training and educative opportunities it offers those people who volunteer. I am sure that the Minister will understand the reasons for supporting the amendment. I hope that he will now utter similar words.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: On 19th October 1993, the Prime Minister said:
"We want to strip away some of the unnecessary obstacles that stand in the way of voluntary work".
I say amen to that. His Government and his party have consistently told us how important they regard voluntary work as being. Here we have the opportunity to turn the Prime Minister's words into reality. We have the opportunity to remove some of the unnecessary obstacles that stand in the way of voluntary work.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, eloquently pointed out that one of the results of unemployment is that people rot away. Their morale begins to dissolve. Voluntary work can retain them in the world within which they wish to contribute to society. Like the noble Lord, a very close member of my family was unemployed for a year. Despite sending out literally hundreds of applications day after day, the factor that kept him going in the end was being able to help out by raising money for charity. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment carefully. Voluntary work should be regarded as a "positive outcome" in the statistics of the Employment Service. It is vital that the so-called description or definition of "positive outcome" is widened from the very narrow base that at present obtains. I can think of no better way to widen it than to include serious voluntary work within its ambit on the understanding that anyone who volunteers should be available for work if a real and serious job emerges.
It is almost beyond my understanding that the amendment can be rejected. It must be in the interests of a civil society, of the young people involved, and of
864
seeking a constructive answer to the problem of unemployment. I hope that the Government will consider the matter with a view to coming forward at Report stage with the necessary amendments.
Lord Norrie: I support Amendment No. 58. First, it ensures that employment offices are given clear guidance. Secondly, it gives jobseekers a clear message that volunteering for charity work is an option as are education courses and skills training.
The amendment relates to Amendment No. 84 which stands in my name to which I will now speak. Now that the Bill introduces the jobseeker's allowance, it replaces both unemployment benefit and income support paid to people who are unemployed. The Bill also provides for the jobseeker's agreement to be entered into by a claimant and an employment officer, all of which is covered in Clause 7.
The purpose of my amendment is to specify in the jobseeker's agreement that volunteering would not jeopardise entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance provided that the claimant is available for work and actively seeking work. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, under the current arrangements a claimant must be available for work at 48 hours' notice. That can cause difficulties for charities in reorganising volunteers, particularly where those volunteers have been supervising others. My amendment would allow an employment officer to offer more than 48 hours' notice in order to avoid such difficulties.
The United Kingdom has a proud record of voluntary service, performed willingly and without financial reward, for the benefit of fellow citizens. Members of this House have in the past played an active role in achieving that and still do so. I believe that the amendment would therefore particularly attract the Committee's attention.
I have a special interest in voluntary organisations working to conserve and improve the natural environment. From my personal experience I can say that volunteering is not only beneficial for society but is also of immense personal benefit to the volunteer. People who are unemployed can gain in experience, self-confidence and discipline, as well as acquiring the skills which would improve their prospects of employment.
It would be shameful if we were to deny those individuals a chance to benefit from such volunteering experience because of unnecessary obstacles or lack of clear understanding. That is a point ably made by the Prime Minister in his speech and one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, alluded.
I am genuinely concerned that on the one hand charities are likely to lose their volunteers who fear losing the jobseeker's allowance. On the other hand, jobseekers will lose an opportunity to receive job training and new skills. My concern is shared by a number of voluntary organisations, all of whom have approached me on the matter. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is chairman of the National Trust, was unable to be here this evening but he has specifically asked me to table an amendment of this nature. Other organisations include the RSPB, the

865
National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Volunteer Centre and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV). That organisation, of which I am president, will help to illustrate the situation.
Each year the BTCV supports in excess of 84,000 volunteers who are engaged in practical nature conservation work. Of those, 500 are longer term volunteers and it is estimated that about two-thirds of them could be affected by the legislation. BTCV's long-term volunteers, as well as helping with administration, public relations, community and schools work, also lead and co-ordinate the work of several thousands of short-term volunteers. The BTCV is concerned that if it loses the services of long-term volunteers because of the new arrangements, it will lose many thousands of people who would otherwise give their time freely. Have the Government visualised what the knock-on effect might be? They recognise, as do we all, the tremendous contribution volunteers make to our society, yet the new arrangements may deter large numbers of people from volunteering.
The Committee will appreciate that young people finishing education, with qualifications but no work experience, are in a "Catch 22" situation. In today's employment market, few organisations have the ability to train youngsters on the job. Employers will always look at prospective staff who have some training or experience. Long-term voluntary work enables people with qualifications but no employment to be trained on the job and acquire work experience and skills which could help them gain paid employment.
Will the Minister agree that it is more important to let youngsters escape from the "Catch 22" situation? Let us be realistic, there is no incentive for jobseekers to take up voluntary work if they are to lose their jobseeker's allowance. I hope that the Minister will consider my arguments valid and will be able to accept my amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to support these important amendments. The United Kingdom is a nation of volunteers. It is estimated that each year 8 million people participate in regular volunteer work and a further 15 million adults are involved in some form of volunteering. The proportion of the population involved in some voluntary activity over a 12-month period rose from 44 per cent. in 1981 to 51 per cent. in 1991. That is an impressive figure in terms of human effort for merely the reward of doing the job.
We have heard from others that people in paid work are more likely than those outside employment to volunteer. It is suggested and is probably true that that reflects the difficulties that unemployed people may have in demonstrating their eligibility for benefit while volunteering. Volunteering is good for society and can be good too for the volunteer, especially one who is unemployed. As we have heard from others, it keeps them involved in the workplace and gives them a reason for keeping up their standards.
Let me illustrate the point by reference to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which until recently I was a council member. Over 7,000 people volunteer each year for the RSPB, including about 3,500
866
volunteers who work on the RSPB nature reserves. Many of them work for one or two weeks and experience no problems with their benefit. They carry out a wide range of management tasks, they work with visitors and assist with biological survey work. The RSPB provides training and supervision for volunteers. But a proportion of them come for longer periods. They are taking positive steps to improve their employment prospects and, at the same time, they contribute to the RSPB's work. Yet those longer term volunteers experience problems when claiming benefit. That is why the two amendments are necessary, to ensure that the problems do not become even greater with the new arrangement.
One RSPB volunteer, a Mr. Daniel Davies, was refused benefit while volunteering because of the short notice he was advised he would have to give. He was moved to say:
"The really galling thing is that it would be easier to stay at home than to volunteer".
We have heard about the other organisations that support the amendments. We have also heard about the Prime Minister's support for the concept of volunteers and I have heard many other representatives of the Government saying the same thing.
I know that the Government have given an assurance that the current position will continue whereby volunteers are given 48 hours' notice. However, in the case of some longer term volunteers, notice longer than 48 hours could be justified where a considerable investment has been made in their training and where others are reliant on the contribution which the volunteer is expected to make. Such cases are not the rule but, like residential volunteering positions, they may warrant special provisions. The two amendments would cover the difficulties and I hope that the Government will feel kindly towards them.
Lord Inglewood: Like my noble friend Lord Wise, and all those who have spoken so feelingly, we recognise the value and importance of volunteering in the community. There can be no doubt that many people throughout the country who undertake voluntary work perform a wide variety of tasks which are of great value and benefit many others. Nor can there be any doubt that voluntary work can both help unemployed people to stay in touch with the labour market and provide an opportunity for them to maintain and develop their skills while looking for work. In recognition of that, there are significant concessions for voluntary workers in the current benefit rules for unemployed people and we will be carrying those into JSA regulations. I do not believe, however, that the amendment is an appropriate way to deal with either voluntary work or positive outcomes from Restart interviews.
All claimants who have been unemployed for six months are required to attend a Restart interview, and to continue to do so every six months as long as they remain unemployed. Related to this, the Employment Service, as part of its annual performance agreement with the Employment Department, has targets for positive outcomes achieved from certain Restart interviews. Examples of positive outcomes include job placings or a referral to a programme such as Training

867
for Work. But voluntary work is in a different category from these examples, the crucial difference being that the claimant remains unemployed. Treating entering voluntary work as a positive outcome would therefore risk creating a perverse incentive to encourage people to remain unemployed. That cannot be right.
Moreover, no other positive outcomes are set out in legislation. Neither are any other Employment Service targets. Indeed it would be most odd to do so, since these are primarily management tools and they change from year to year to reflect the annual performance targets. If Members of the Committee such as my noble friend Lord Wise and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, know of problems on which they can give chapter and verse, please will they let us know? As I have already mentioned, it will carry forward important concessions from existing availability and "actively seeking employment" regulations. Jobseekers who undertake voluntary work will continue to be allowed 48 hours' notice before taking up the offer of a job. Any voluntary work which a jobseeker is undertaking will continue to be taken into consideration when assessing whether in any week he has met the "actively seeking employment" condition.
In view of the points that I have made about both the status of restart interviews and the concessions for those undertaking voluntary work which will carry into JSA, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I hope that this will satisfy my noble friend.
I turn now to Amendment No. 84. Current regulations provide that a person undertaking volunteer work can be deemed available for work provided that he or she is prepared within 48 hours' notice to attend an interview for a job with the Employment Service or DSS officers. If the purpose of this amendment is to seek to gain a commitment from the Government that these provisions will be carried forward into JSA, I can give that commitment. But it is very important to appreciate that any person undertaking voluntary work will have this reflected in their own jobseeker's agreement. That is because the agreement will record the terms of a person's availability and the steps which he or she intends to take to look for work.
The amendment as drafted would seem to require that the conditions relevant to volunteer workers must be specified in the agreement of every claimant. That would be very confusing. I am sure that my noble friend cannot have intended this effect. Against the background of that commitment, I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied.
9 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. I may say that I find him more interesting when he is speaking from his own heart than when he is reading a brief. The problem with the brief is that it does not allow for the real eventualities of the situation. What troubles me is this. If we can consider voluntary work as a positive outcome—not the first priority positive outcome, which would be to get a job, and not even the second priority positive outcome, which would be to get a training place, but at least
868
within the realm of positive outcomes, which would then become the basis of his own instructions to the Department of Employment staff—all of us in this Chamber would feel happier than we do.
I wonder whether the noble Lord will take the matter back and think about the possibility of including voluntary service as at least one positive outcome among several. The case that has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and others, is very convincing. I wonder whether the Minister will think about the possibility of some slight amendment of the positive outcome definition that he could bring forward on Report.
Lord Swinfen: As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, just said, the Government have brought forward in recent years care in the community, an awful lot of which falls on the shoulders of voluntary organisations. These are non-profit making organisations which, in order to get the work that is needed done, rely to a very large extent on volunteers, both skilled and unskilled, to help them.
The noble Lord gave me the impression that he did not think that volunteering helped unemployed people. I do not know whether he has been unemployed or whether his advisers have been unemployed. However, I spent a two-year period unemployed. I must admit that the voluntary work that I was able to do was of very considerable assistance in keeping up morale and helping me to make the effort to go on attempting to get jobs the whole time rather than becoming dispirited.
Lord Inglewood: I can confirm that we do value voluntary work for the kinds of reasons that my noble friend Lord Swinfen has given. We are all agreed on the value of voluntary work. In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we shall certainly consider very carefully the remarks that have been made this evening and the points made to see whether we feel it would be appropriate to do something. Clearly, we have to keep the jobseeking aspects of the jobseeking agreement in the forefront.
Lord Wise: I am sure that my noble friend, as he said, has been most impressed by the speeches from all sides of the Committee. I thank him for his assurance that he will consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. That is most helpful.
I wonder whether he can confirm that the new guidance and training will be given to employment officers on the eligibility of volunteers for jobseeker's allowance. Can he give an assurance that the Government will consult the voluntary sector on the drafting of any new regulations? It would be most helpful if he could give such assurances. Perhaps my noble friend will reply to that point before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I can confirm those matters.
Lord Wise: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert—

869
("() provide that where a doubt arises as to whether the claimant is available for employment or actively seeking employment, or is to be treated as available for employment or actively seeking employment, an income-based jobseeker' s allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer at an amount determined in accordance with section 4 but reduced by 40 per cent of the claimant's personal rate which would otherwise be applicable to the claimant.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 95 and 110.
As the Bill stands, if a frontline benefit officer believes that a claimant is not actively seeking work or is failing to meet the jobseeker's agreement, that officer can, as we explored earlier this evening, stop the claimant's benefit. If the person is judged vulnerable—for example if he or she is sick, disabled, pregnant or has dependent children—he or she may in the meanwhile get a hardship payment of some 60 per cent. A claimant who is not vulnerable—that is, if he or she is single or part of a childless couple—will receive nothing for two weeks, and then, if he or she is in hardship, a hardship payment until the adjudication officer has determined the case; whereupon, if the adjudication officer upholds the ruling of the benefit officer, that claimant may get a hardship payment if he or she is vulnerable and, if not vulnerable, absolutely nothing.
Why are we worried about this? We are worried for several reasons. First, the frontline employment staff are being asked to assess whether the jobseeker's agreement has been infringed or whether someone is not actively seeking work. It is an area of discretion which, for non-professional staff, I find almost unprecedented. How qualified will the staff member be to assess whether someone who has mild mental health problems is or is not being reasonable about their jobseeking activities? Will they be able to judge, as we also explored this evening, whether someone whose first language is not English or who has learning disabilities, understands what is entailed? What will happen when someone's behaviour or appearance affronts them—for instance, a punk hairdo, silver nose rings or Rasta dreadlocks—when all sorts of prejudices come into play? Will that be deemed reasonable excuse for "not seeking work"? That is especially so when the jobseeker's allowance has not been acceded to voluntarily in the first place and is regarded as coercive and unreasonable by the claimant from the beginning. So there is an area of discretion at that wicket gate.
Secondly, that area of discretion, which is so wide, must be and will be abused. That is reinforced by the fact—it is covered in an amendment that we shall explore later—that Employment Service staff are asked to increase their referrals to the adjudication officer where there is an arguable case. We know that each year the number of referrals has been ratcheted up: 135,000 in 1994–95 to 185,000 in 1995–96; and in practice this year's target has already been exceeded. Over and beyond the referrals, we know that the number of disqualifications—despite what the Minister told us earlier in Committee—has in fact doubled: 76,000 in the nine months from April to December 1993–94; 113,000 in a similar period, 1994–95. What the Minister should
870
have mentioned at the time is that it means that while that referral process is going on, many people will lose two weeks' benefit as well as being put through all the complexities of stop/start with housing benefit and council tax benefit.
If benefit denial is locked in with performance-related targets, the most humane staff will be under pressure to deny people interim benefit; the less humane staff will have the perfect opportunity to pander to their prejudices. No one should have such power on a belief, whim, prejudice or on imperfect evidence to deny another human being the amount of money on which to live.
Our third concern is that those regarded as vulnerable may receive a hardship payment. That is another area of discretion which concerns us. Of those who applied in 1993–94, only 48 per cent. received such payments. At the last discussion that we had on this matter, the Minister was unable to tell us whether someone with 4, 5, 6 or 7 incapacity points, but not sufficient points to gain incapacity benefit, will automatically be regarded as vulnerable. I ask the Minister particularly to tell us whether somebody coming to JSA with incapacity points will thereby be judged as vulnerable. I hope so. But if not, there will be considerable distress on the part of those losing invalidity benefit who have fluctuating health conditions. How wide a category is "vulnerable"? Who will decide? Why, if those people are vulnerable, will there be a hardship payment made from the benefit office rather than a straight 40 per cent. deduction of JSA from the Employment Service?
Finally, in the fourth area of discretion, the appeal goes to the adjudication officer, who may recommend the restoration of JSA. But if he does not, the vulnerable will continue on hardship and the non-vulnerable—young, single people, childless couples and those perhaps with less easily diagnosed mental health problems—will have no income at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said the other night, they will not starve peaceably—at least I hope that they will not. They will beg, steal, become prostitutes and sell drugs. In the process they will become entirely unemployable ever again.
The continuing right to even 60 per cent. of benefit is, I should have thought, surely a severe enough penalty to help keep them off the streets. Deny them benefit for up to six months and send them back to the streets and they are lost to all of us. We beg the Minister not to do that. If we outlaw from benefit some of our fellow citizens, assuredly we outlaw them from the law itself. Even the Victorians in their most penal and policing authoritarian mode—the classical Ricardian economists—never did that. They always had available either outdoor or indoor relief. Why did those most severe and judgmental of Victorian moralists continue poor relief on the rates? They recognised that if they refused money for bread, those people would break the bakers' windows. As Richard Oastler, a Tory philanthropist and J. R. Stephens, a Methodist minister, said in the 1830s to people such as are in this Chamber:
"I put these things to the men of wealth and property … if the poor have no right to the rates, then the rich man has no right to his rents"

871
Precisely.
So there is Amendment No. 59—that where a doubt has arisen and there is a referral to the adjudication officer, a penalised JSA should be paid to all and should not be deducted from those who are surely innocent until proved guilty. Last year, 180,000 people were proved innocent. And there is Amendment No. 69—that if a claimant is pursuing his right to benefit through the appeals system, such benefits payments should continue in full if a Social Security Advisory Committee deems it a not unreasonable claim.
We have argued that because, first, we believe that under this Bill a person is being fined and punished in advance of being found guilty of an offence. That is what benefit stoppage means. Secondly, that person is being fined and punished in advance of being found guilty of an offence on the basis of the judgment of a relatively inexperienced and untrained frontline officer who has a Financial interest in increasing the number of referrals and therefore the temporary withdrawal of benefit. Thirdly, it is going to an adjudication officer who, if he finds against the claimant, will deny him any income whatever; yet all the appeals evidence shows that the record of decisions is weak, and that 39 per cent. of their judgments are in error or are unsatisfactory, as are 92 per cent. of those that go to appeal.
I find this part of the Bill so unbelievably awful that I am ashamed of all of us who collude in its provisions. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Acton, tells me that his great-grandfather is regularly misquoted. He said the words are in fact: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". It is a significant qualification but some tendencies are a good deal stronger than others. Employment officers in this situation are being given something which has a great resemblance to absolute power over other individual human beings. The tendency to corrupt may not always be resisted. Temptation has been known to be succumbed to.
When we debated this element of the Bill on Amendment No. 3, we were consistently told that the power to disentitle is not an arbitrary power because it will be referred to an adjudication officer. It became very clear that that argument cannot carry any weight unless the benefit is allowed to continue until the adjudication. I suspect that one of the motives behind the Bill is to take the workload off the adjudication officers, who are already overworked. But by delegating it to employment officers, who are in the frontline and not in any judicial situation, it will only become more severe.
Most of us are not in any position to cope with the certain and total disappearance of every last penny of our income. We do not all have something laid by for a rainy day and, in particular, those who are on benefit do not. So, as the noble Baroness was saying, people need to take some sort of emergency action. In this context,
872
yet once again, I will say how much I regret that the Department of Social Security has not undertaken any study of levels of debt among those on benefit.
People live on benefit. I have never known anybody who succeeded in paying off large sums of debt while on benefit. If one is trying to do that, one is without the resources that one needs to look for work and the unemployment—which we all want to see stopped—is prolonged. I appreciate that the Minister will say that there are payments for those who experience severe hardship. I will put again to the Minister a question that I put last Thursday. I asked him whether he could explain how one can be disentitled to a means-tested benefit without experiencing hardship. The Minister replied that we were beginning to go into hypothetical cases. That did not answer the question, but it most certainly begged it. The question whether those cases are hypothetical or actual is the hub of the whole argument. I should like to hear a real answer to that question tonight.
Lord Inglewood: We have made it very clear during the debates in another place that, where there is a doubt about whether a claimant satisfies the conditions of availability and actively seeking, benefit should be payable at a reduced rate in certain circumstances pending the adjudication officer's decision. All claimants in one of the prescribed vulnerable groups—those with children and caring responsibilities, the sick, the disabled and those whose partners are sick, disabled or pregnant—will be entitled to make a claim for JSA on grounds of hardship pending the decision of an adjudication officer on the jobseeking conditions. All claimants will have such access if the decision takes longer than two weeks to be made. In all cases it will of course be for the claimants to demonstrate that they would face hardship were they not to receive payments on that basis.
We believe that those arrangements are reasonable. We should remember that a jobseeker's agreement has been entered into by people so they know what is the general position. If, instead, all jobseekers had access to a reduced rate of benefit immediately, that would reduce incentives to meet the availability and active seeking conditions for benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether IB leavers would be a vulnerable group and able to obtain hardship payments throughout the whole time they are waiting for an adjudication decision. Where a person leaving invalidity benefit falls into one of the vulnerable groups because he has children, qualifies for a disability premium or is sick, he will be able to claim hardship payments from the outset. Otherwise, we propose that he should be treated like other childless claimants who are capable of work. However, my noble friend has given an assurance to the Committee that we shall consider this issue further, and we shall be doing so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that comment. I was trying to press him on whether the carrying of points which show a degree of disability—in other words, a partial disability—will count someone as vulnerable. We know that if someone

873
fits the vulnerable category without having partial disability, he is vulnerable. What I am trying to find out is whether someone who is clearly regarded medically as partially disabled or partially incapacitated and has five points, six points or seven points but not the 10 points for mental health or the 15 points for physical health which will give him incapacity benefit will count as vulnerable. Some of our concerns on the interface between the two benefits would be greatly removed if the Minister could give us that assurance.
Lord Inglewood: It is clear in the remarks I made that where the person concerned qualifies for a disability premium or is sick he will be able to claim the hardship payment from the outset. But, as I said, we are considering this and we shall look into the matter further.
Although I would urge your Lordships to reject the amendment, I should perhaps make it clear that I do not believe that the provision in Schedule 1(8), which we had intended should be sufficient to enable such hardship payments, is sufficient for our purposes. For that reason we have today tabled an amendment to address that particular problem.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister telling us that he has tabled an amendment to the Bill today? If so, may we see it?
Lord Inglewood: We have tabled an amendment to Schedule 1(8). We shall certainly make it available if the noble Earl has not seen it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What does it say?
Lord Inglewood: As with all the amendments, it is extremely complicated.
Earl Russell: While the Minister waits for what the Leader of another place once described as "the curious process of osmosis" by which information reaches Ministers in this House, I should like to ask him a few questions. First, why are single people never presumed to be in hardship? Is this a form of family planning? If so, it is one I do not share.
The Minister mentioned the need to demonstrate hardship. Can he tell us exactly what a person has to do to demonstrate hardship? In the world in which I live, if one is disentitled to a means-tested benefit, that in itself demonstrates hardship. What else does a person have to do to demonstrate that he is in hardship?
Thirdly, I was very, very puzzled by the Minister's argument that if one keeps one's benefit until one has gone to the adjudication officer that reduces the incentive to conform to the system. I suppose one could say that the prospect of going through a trial in which an acquittal might possibly be the result rather than being immediately sent to prison reduces the incentive for criminals to keep the law. I very much hope that no government in this country will ever act on such an argument. Indeed, if the Prime Minister were to apply that doctrine of employment to his Ministers, I would
874
be extremely surprised if he kept any Ministers for very long. Really, that argument is unacceptable, and I hope someone will think of a better one.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend said that he had tabled an amendment to deal with this subject. He is the only person in the Committee to have seen the amendment. Is it possible for him to tell us what it is?
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may start with the amendment. It provides for hardship payments to be made in a case where benefit has been suspended or where a decision on conditions of entitlement has not yet been taken on a claim.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We know that that is the case for those who are leaving work either on grounds of misconduct or voluntarily. That was the concession made by the Minister in another place, Ann Widdecombe, in Committee. Our concern is with the actively seeking work clauses. Does that apply to actively seeking work as opposed to the other grounds, which are voluntarily leaving work and misconduct?
Lord Inglewood: It is an extremely big amendment. I can willingly provide a copy to the noble Baroness if she wants one and we can discuss it later. I thought that was the easiest way of dealing with it. The amendment is intended to achieve what we thought the part we are excluding was going to achieve.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the Minister answer that one question? Does it mean that someone falling foul of the referral to the adjudication officer on "actively seeking work" grounds will remain eligible for hardship payments throughout or does it apply just to voluntary misconduct? If so, why are the Government still perpetuating a distinction between voluntarily leaving work and misconduct on the one hand and ASW rules on the other, which are the basis of our concern? We know why the Government are extending the provision for voluntarily leaving work because it takes so long to come to appeal, but, as we have some of the same problems as regards "actively seeking work" judgments, the same rules should apply.
Lord McCarthy: We are operating like a parish council. This House has machinery which can produce this amendment. Why cannot the noble Lord go into the Library and get 15 or 25 copies for everyone? Why are we mucking about like this?
Earl Russell: I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes while copies are provided.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.27 to 9.32 p.m.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was enjoying listening to the Minister describe the intent of his amendment. As I see it, the key line is:
"In such circumstances as may be prescribed, a claimant may be treated as being entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance before his claim for a jobseeker's allowance has been determined".

875
Will the Minister tell us what circumstances he envisages being prescribed?
Lord Inglewood: The circumstances we intend to be prescribed are those I have already described.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister be kind enough to repeat what he said?
Lord Inglewood: They are that a person has children, qualifies for a disability premium or is sick, and also the existing provisions in that regard which are currently applicable. The amendment is intended to enable the process to take place, not to change the scope of the definitions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What the amendment does is merely to say that claimants are entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance if they fit the existing categories of vulnerability, and, presumably, meet the hardship rule. The Minister has referred only to vulnerability. Does he require that they meet the hardship rule as well under the amendment? There are two hurdles obviously. Are we asking people to clear both?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, on the lines of the existing arrangements.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Therefore, we have not advanced any further. We are saying that those who are not vulnerable, although they may be in hardship, after two weeks may receive a hardship payment but that those who are not vulnerable and not in hardship will receive nothing, even though their case has not yet been determined. That remains the same.
Lord Inglewood: That is right. However, after the adjudication officer has determined, the benefit will, in the event of the arrangements being upheld, be backdated to cover the period for which it was suspended.
Earl Russell: I thank those who have taken the trouble to make the amendment available to us. However, it appears to say little more than "regulations may prescribe". It is an amendment signed in the usual way as regards this Bill; Humpty Dumpty. The intention may or may not be excellent but I do not see how parliamentary control, as distinct from scrutiny, can be exercised over anything done under it.
It sounds as though the principle that Parliament makes the law is in danger of obsolescence. Furthermore, having listened to what the Minister has said, I am not convinced that he has dealt with the substantive points of the amendment. The question of whether the Minister recognises that single people can experience hardship, and if not why not, was serious. The question of how one can be disentitled to a means-tested benefit without experiencing hardship was also serious. I have now asked that question three times
876
and I badly want an answer. I cannot see that the amendment fits the bill. It is better than nothing but not, I regret to say, by very much.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My heart rose when I read paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment and I considered that the Minister had gone some way to meet the case made by Members on all sides of the Committee. However, paragraph (5) firmly announces that most of the money paid can be recovered. I am unclear about where the money can be recovered from because, if the claim for benefit is disallowed, the claimant will have no money from which to be able to repay the amount extended to him. On the other hand, if his claim is regarded as being justified I do not see why on earth he should be expected to repay the amount; his position has already been recognised as a result of the adjudication. Therefore, paragraph (5) is either otiose or foolish and I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider it. Paragraphs (1) and (2) go some way towards meeting the case raised by Members on all sides of the Committee.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may add a further comment. Is there any evidence as regards the tests that are to be used to demonstrate hardship? The proposition about demonstrating hardship was made some time ago by Mr. Roger Evans in another place. It is not a new government idea; they have had plenty of time to think about it. When we understand what the Government mean by demonstrating hardship, when we look at the evidence that is to be produced as proof of hardship, we might have more understanding of what they mean by "hardship". If we understand neither the meaning of "hardship" nor the meaning of "demonstration" we have not advanced any further. I trust that for the moment the process of osmosis is complete.
Lord Inglewood: I have been asked about the definition of "hardship". Currently hardship is not defined in regulations but is left completely to the discretion of the adjudication officer. We consider that it is right in JSA, which aims to set out a clearer sanctions regime, that criteria should be made more explicit in regulations.
In drawing up the regulations we will take account of the guidance issued by the chief adjudication officer in the past and we will listen to views. However, we would expect to prescribe factors which should be taken into account by the adjudication officer, including the level of resources available to the household; the risk of lack of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, food, clothing or heating; and the presence of family members particularly susceptible to risk—for example, children, elderly people or those in ill health or with disabilities. We shall carry forward the provisions under which a reduction equivalent to 20 per cent. rather than 40 per cent. of personal allowance applies where the household includes someone who is pregnant or seriously ill and the claimant has capital of less than £200.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the problems relating to the recovery of money. The noble Baroness puts her finger on the underlying problem behind advancing money. If people are not ultimately found to be entitled to it, they will not be in a position

877
to repay it. Clearly, where money has been advanced and then some money is owing because the claims are upheld, the administrative reality will be that one will be offset against the other.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It seems to me that that makes paragraph (5) somewhat otiose, but I may be drawing the wrong conclusion.
Earl Russell: We are becoming involved in arguments similar to those which have been taking place recently in the press about when life begins. We are arguing about when the entitlement to disentitlement begins. The Minister assumes that it begins from the very first referral. That is rather like assuming that, when a Motion is carried to reduce a Minister's salary by £1,000 per year, that lasts from the beginning of the Session of the Parliament in which it was done. In effect, that is retroactive.
We have here a situation which would be a great deal simpler if the disentitlement were to begin from the moment of adjudication because, after all, until that moment, it is not clear whether there is a right to disentitlement. The department is taking away the money in too much of a hurry. That is why the question of paying it back arises in the first place.
Lord Inglewood: In the context of this debate, the entitlement rests with the satisfaction of the various criteria. If the criteria cease to be satisfied, then the entitlement falls. That is the basis on which the approach that has been adopted has been built.
Earl Russell: Someone who is accused of murder is innocent until proved guilty. Why does not the same apply to someone who is accused of breaking benefit conditions?
Lord Inglewood: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, the comparison is not entirely exact although if one were to extend the comparison further the point should be made that if someone is accused of murder, he is normally taken into custody and the matter is determined by a trial. Under this proposed scheme, the benefit is suspended until the moment of adjudication. If the decision is taken in favour of the claimant, the back-payment is made running from the period at which it was cut off. It seems to me that that is the equivalent of being released, having been found not guilty.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord chooses his examples very badly. You are taken into custody but you are not fined. The Government are fining these people.
Lord Swinfen: If someone is taken into custody, he is fed, housed and heated. If he has no benefit at all, he may lose his housing and he has nothing with which to pay for heat or food.
Lord Inglewood: That is one reason why I said that I did not think that it was a particularly good comparison and perhaps it was remiss of me to go in that direction. But there are also the hardship provisions which come into play should that eventuality arise.
Earl Russell: There is a case in the briefing papers which I have of somebody who visited a CAB office in
878
North Wales. He had been disentitled. He had no electricity and no bed or food. He was spending the day lying on the floor in the dark. He told the CAB that he would rather be in prison because there he would have a bed and food. Is that what the Home Secretary really means when he says that prison works?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps we have reached the end of this debate. As I understand the intention when the Bill entered the Commons, if there was any doubt and the referral process took place, the disqualification from benefit for two weeks except where there was hardship applied to those voluntarily leaving work or leaving work for misconduct as well as to those excluded under the actively seeking work rules.
So far as I know, during the Committee stage in the other place, the Minister agreed that anyone voluntarily leaving work or leaving work as a result of being sacked through misconduct was entitled to continue to receive not just a hardship payment—and not to have to show vulnerability—but also to receive JSA paid in full throughout. That is my understanding of the situation; namely, that someone in those circumstances has JSA paid throughout the whole period.
The Minister is now insisting upon giving a different response about innocent until proved guilty or, indeed, guilty until proved guilty for someone actively seeking work from that applying to someone actually leaving work for what, in my view, is a much more serious offence; namely, misconduct in work. Can the Minister say why he will not align the actively seeking work benefit rules with those that he has already conceded for those voluntarily leaving work on grounds of either misconduct or for whatever reason?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend intends to deal with that aspect a little later. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to deal with the matter at that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister's response will influence whether or not I seek the opinion of the Committee on the matter. As I said, the Minister conceded that JSA benefit should continue to be paid while adjudication is pending, but he is denying it for actively seeking work cases where a much greater area of discretion may apply and where, therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, someone will be fined until he is proven innocent. We all know from last year's figures that 180,000 people were confirmed innocent; but 90,000 of them would have had to wait for weeks without benefit under the provisions of the proposed clauses. Can the Minister respond?
Lord Inglewood: Where a person has established entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance but there is doubt as to whether a sanction should be applied to him

879
because he left his last job voluntarily or was dismissed for misconduct, payment of the JSA will be made in full pending the decision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, can the Minister tell us why that cannot apply to those actively seeking work?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is trying to make is that we are imposing stricter penalties on those who are described as not "actively seeking work" for reasons which may be overwhelmingly good—for example, they have to care for a dependent relative or they do not speak English very well—than we are on those who are actually guilty of, or responsible for, misconduct at work. They are treated far more generously. I am sure that the Minister will understand that we find that an extremely puzzling distinction for the Government to make.
Lord Inglewood: There is a difference between people who are meeting the basic jobseeking conditions and those who are not. If the person is meeting the basic entitlement conditions and is clearly a jobseeker, but a doubt has arisen as to whether he left a job voluntarily, he will then receive benefit until the question is resolved. However, where the doubt is about the basic jobseeking conditions, we cannot simply pay benefit automatically before a decision is reached. Nevertheless, we have heard the comments that have been made on the matter and we shall consider most carefully the points that have been raised.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Very well. Basically, we are saying that, where there is a doubt, the Government have built into the whole system an incentive to increase the number of referrals and, therefore, the number of temporary benefit suspensions. Those judgments have doubled in the past year. Is the Minister really telling Members of the Committee that the number of alleged work-shy people has doubled during that time?
We know that the introduction of performance-related pay and targets is impacting on the decision-making process. In consequence, people who may have a mild learning difficulty, a mild mental health problem or for whom English is not a first language or those who are vulnerable, incompetent and ineffective will now be fined with a loss of their benefit, whereas if they had actually lost a job through misconduct the benefit would continue.
It is probably too late to take the matter to a vote this evening. However, I can promise the Minister that we shall return to it on Report. I very much hope that the noble Lord can persuade us with rather more convincing arguments than those of us on this side of the Committee have heard tonight. Frankly, it is unfair and unreasonable that someone is fined, before the case has even been judged, by having his benefit suspended on the discretion, the prejudice, the insight or the lack of evidence of an untrained employment officer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 not moved]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 5, line 34, after ("information") insert ("and such evidence as may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: Any unemployed person will be familiar with long-standing arrangements that when he signs on for benefit every fortnight he actually signs a declaration that he is available for work and actively seeking work and that his circumstances have not changed. This declaration forms part of his claim for benefit for the preceding two weeks. Section 5(1) (h) and 5(1) (i) of the Administration Act provide the powers to require the signing of this declaration: subsection (1) (h) for example, provides for regulations,
"for requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of such a claim … etc.".
Although in JSA—because it is an open-ended benefit—claimants will not be required to make a fresh claim every fortnight, we still intend that they should attend their Jobcentre regularly to show that they are available and actively seeking work. We therefore must make provision in JSA, in addition to the provisions concerning the claim for benefit carried in the Administration Act, to enable the normal practice of signing on to continue. The Government amendment is simply to keep the wording of the provision consistent with the wording in the Administration Act so that unemployed people can be required to sign a declaration on their regular attendance at the Jobcentre.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. At present a person claiming unemployment benefit makes a new claim for benefit every two weeks when he signs on at the Jobcentre. The claim is in arrears for the preceding two weeks. As a result, when a claimant fails to sign on—perhaps because he has found a job or simply cannot be bothered—there is no claim for benefit and no benefit is paid from the previous time when the claimant signed. Every claimant knows that if he does not sign, he does not get his benefit.
This amendment is designed simply to ensure that this existing practice can continue. The current provision in the Bill at Clause 6(5) enables regulations to prescribe that entitlement will cease from the point at which a claimant fails, without good cause, to attend the Jobcentre as requested. But because the basis of JSA is different from that of unemployment benefit, entitlement would continue until that point, contrary to current UB arrangements, unless the adjudication officer had evidence to determine that the conditions for benefit were no longer being met. But when claimants fail to turn up, we generally do not know why. There is, after all, no reason why claimants should tell Jobcentre staff.
We believe that most unemployed people who stop signing on would find it strange if they were pursued by adjudication officers for the reason why they had failed to sign on. They would equally find it strange if they continued to receive benefit for a period for which they had not signed on. This amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that benefit is only paid for the

881
period for which the claimant demonstrated that he was available and actively seeking work by signing on. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 5, leave out lines 38 to 41.
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee—I have already given the Minister notice—I would like to be allowed to speak also to Amendment No. 70 as the matters raised are similar. Both concern the power to define good cause. Good cause, like intention, is one of those things which I should have thought was best defined individually and in judicial circumstances. Again, we are dealing with the question of the evidence that is to be taken into account in defining it. The Government's memorandum states that regulations will provide for matters and circumstances to be taken into account in determining good cause for failure to comply with such regulations. So we are to have regulations upon regulations: regulations to determine what may be a good cause for not complying with regulations.
This seems to me to be a case of the over-fussy draftsmanship with which the Renton Report is concerned, where the attempt to provide for every eventuality ends up in a failure to provide for all kinds of things which actually take place. To take one example, which was mentioned in the newspapers recently, some Members of the Committee may have read of the man who was taken into police custody and was being stripped for the cells when a boa constrictor emerged from his Y-fronts, where he said he kept it in order to keep it warm. I believe that boa constrictors feel the cold. In all the care that the department might take in listing good cause, could it possibly think of an employer who kept a boa constrictor in his Y-fronts? If the department forgot to enumerate that possibility, would it mean that that was not a good cause for leaving a job? I am frightened of disentitlement to benefit, but I can imagine circumstances in which I might be even more frightened of a boa constrictor.
That example illustrates the futility of trying to define good cause by regulation. It is much better to recognise that this is not a legislative matter but a judicial one. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I have to advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 66 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 67.
Lord Inglewood: One of the key purposes of the jobseeker's allowance is to ensure that only those who are available and actively seeking employment receive the allowance. In order to ensure that jobseekers meet these conditions, it is essential to review the activities which they are undertaking to find work. This regular contact is not only to monitor their job search, but also to identify whether they need advice or help, which might perhaps be attendance on an employment programme or training course.
882
It is long-standing practice that unemployed people should attend their jobcentre regularly to demonstrate that they continue to be available for work and their circumstances have not changed in a way that would affect their benefit entitlement. That normally takes the form of signing on. Every claimant knows that if he does not sign on he does not get his benefit. We propose in JSA to continue with the requirement to attend the jobcentre and to maintain that link with entitlement to benefit. That is what this subsection achieves. The noble Earl's amendment would result in a claimant's failure to attend the jobcentre meaning nothing. The result would be that the claimant's refusal to give any information about his circumstances or his job search would mean nothing. I cannot believe that the noble Earl would accept that those were sensible results.
The requirements for claimants to attend and the types of information needed may change as circumstances and labour markets change. Hence, a power to make delegated legislation is suitable. Similar regulation-making powers are to be found in current regulations concerning the requirements to attend the office and give information in respect of a claim and concerning the requirements to attend for the purpose of interviews such as Restart interviews.
In addition to signing on, we have already made clear that the existing regime of in-depth interviews at 13 weeks and 26 weeks and six-monthly interviews thereafter should broadly continue within JSA. That is not to say that we might not require some jobseekers to attend the office on other occasions if we think it necessary in order to provide them with advice or to monitor their job-search activity more closely. For instance, the regular caseload interviews in the 1-2-1 programme have already proved a valuable approach for people under 25 who have been out of work for more than a year. The noble Earl's amendment would also mean that a claimant's failure to attend one of these interviews would make no difference to his receipt of benefit.
I now move to Amendment No. 70. The claimant may have a good reason for failing to attend the jobcentre to sign on or for a Restart interview. He may be sick; he may have a job interview; or he may be dealing with an urgent domestic problem. Subsection (5) (a) provides that entitlement will cease only if the claimant fails to attend without good cause. This carries forward existing practice where a person may make a delayed claim for unemployment benefit or will not be disallowed for failing to attend a Restart interview if he can show good cause. However, good cause is not defined in either case. It is important to provide for this issue through regulations.
Throughout JSA we aim to introduce greater clarity into benefit procedures and conditions. At present, the adjudication officer decides on the merits of each case whether the claimant has good cause guided only by precedent. This introduces uncertainty into the arrangements for claimant and jobcentre staff alike. By prescribing in a non-exhaustive list matters which are not to be taken into account by the adjudication officer, it will be clearer for all concerned whether or not the reasons for non-attendance should lead to the claimant

883
losing benefit. Examples of good cause will include temporary sickness, domestic difficulties such as those caused by pressing caring responsibilities, and unforeseen emergencies.
It is important to be clear that the regulations provide a non-exhaustive list. There will still be flexibility for the adjudication officer.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I regret to say that that reply has entirely misunderstood the purport of the amendment. If the Bill provided that people shall not fail to attend their jobcentres without good cause, I would not have made a moment's protest. I object to the attempt to prescribe a series of requirements by regulation followed by an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of what shall be good causes for not complying with those regulations.
My specific concern is with the attempt to make an exhaustive list of good causes by regulation. It means that a certain cause will be good, or might be bad, no matter how severe the cause might be. That is not in the real nature of the case.
Lord Inglewood: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive my interrupting him. As I hope I made clear, the point is to establish a non-exhaustive list rather than an exhaustive list.
Earl Russell: I am relieved to hear that. It goes a long way to reassure me. However, if the list is to be non-exhaustive, I do not understand why it is worth making. One has to judge these matters on their merits. I cite the example of someone who has to walk five miles every day to his Jobcentre. Let us suppose that that person said one day that he could not attend the Jobcentre because he had blisters. I would not be happy with providing either that that was a good cause or that it was not. I should have thought that it depended on how bad the blisters were. The best way to find out would be to ask the man's doctor, and not to make another regulation. I believe that this is an entirely misguided method of legislation. During a moment of osmosis, we may think about whether this is really a sensible way to set about legislating. I look forward to hearing a reply.
Lord Inglewood: Throughout the Jobseekers Bill we aim to introduce greater clarity to benefit procedures and conditions. At present the adjudication officer decides on the merit of each case whether the claimant has good cause guided only by precedent. That introduces uncertainty into the arrangements both for the claimant and Jobcentre staff. By prescribing in a non-exhaustive list matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account by the adjudication officer it will be clearer for all concerned whether the reasons for non-attendance should lead to the claimant losing benefit.
Earl Russell: In its report the committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explained most eloquently how the continuous pursuit of certainty leads in the end to a self-defeating growth in uncertainty. I have never seen that point demonstrated so clearly as today. I had no idea
884
that the noble Lord was quite as right as he obviously is. Nevertheless, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("without good cause").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 5, line 41, after ("subsection") insert:
("() provide for entitlement to cease at such time (after he last attended in compliance with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (4) (a)) as may be determined in accordance with the regulations;
() provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant shows, within a prescribed period of his failure to comply, that he had good cause for that failure;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("() Regulations may provide for an income-based jobseeker's allowance (a "hardship allowance") to be payable to a person in need (a "vulnerable person") where the person would otherwise suffer hardship and—

(a) is not available for work;

(b) is not actively seeking work;

(c) has not entered into a jobseeker's agreement; or

(d) the question of his entitlement to jobseeker's allowance under sections 6, 7, or 8 has been referred to an adjudication officer for a determination.")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment has the objective of providing for a hardship allowance—the minimum level of benefit—in circumstances where the claimant is, for reasons determined, not available for work—that is to say, he does not satisfy the requirements defined in that terminology; where he is not actively seeking work—again he does not satisfy the requirements laid down for that definition; where he has not entered into a jobseeker's agreement; or, finally, the issue which we have discussed at some length in the Committee, where the adjudication has not yet taken place.
I shall not pursue the arguments at length because we have already deployed them a good deal in Committee. However, the force of the amendment is essentially that men and women should not be left without any means of legal sustenance of any kind in circumstances beyond their control where they are unable to draw benefit and are unable to draw any other kind of income.
The anxiety we have was expressed eloquently earlier in the Committee stages by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She referred to the problem that arises when people have no legal means of income whatever. I find that we too easily dismiss the problem of how one obtains income in those circumstances. We too easily dismiss the possibility that people may be driven to crime or other acts against the legal structure of our society by their inability to obtain a basic income from any legal source whatever.
In view of the late hour, I shall not move Amendment No. 71 at great length. Its purpose is to try to provide as a basic final entitlement—not for those who are job-shy but for those who have gone through all the procedures to try to establish their right to legal entitlement—that they shall be entitled to a hardship allowance and a minimum level of benefit as an alternative to being driven to extra legal methods of trying to pay their basic bills. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support Amendment No. 71 but perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether she was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 101, 102, 180 and 182.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Yes, I should have been but I felt that in view of the time we should refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. I am sorry that I did not do so and am grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning it. The purpose of Amendment No. 101 is to ensure that adjudication of any claims is made within a relatively short time and that where the adjudication is not made within 14 days, there should be a continuing entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance. We understand that the average period in which adjudication is made can be as long as 22 weeks or even longer. Therefore, at present, no allowance is made in the Bill to provide people with means of benefit to sustain themselves while they wait for a final adjudication.
We return to the point which has been made time and again about the Bill that people should not be found guilty while their proof remains to be heard. We should make the normal assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. In this case, that means that benefit should continue to be paid until the adjudication is made. With some of the most vulnerable and impoverished people in our society, it must be wrong to make a decision in advance of adjudication that tells against their right to benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying Amendment No. 101 for us, as well as the other amendments in the group. We support them and Amendment No. 71.
As the noble Baroness explained persuasively to us, Amendment No. 71 involves our anxiety where the Government are withdrawing the statutory right to those who fail the vulnerability and hardship tests. Thousands will have nothing to live on; some will be awkward customers who insist on living. We have the experience of America, which shows what happens when they take to the streets. We have said less tonight about the others who will not have that fortitude to survive because they are vulnerable. English may not be their first language; they may have a drink problem or a moderate mental health problem which is not easily detected but which makes them virtually unemployable or, as we are increasingly learning, they may be on the streets because they come from a background (you can almost chart the history) of family abuse leading to local authority care, the Army and out on to the streets, never having experienced a satisfactory family life and being unable
886
to survive outside some version or other of institutional care. And they are incompetent. They are vulnerable because they are inarticulate.
Therefore, because they are vulnerable and inarticulate, they are less likely to be able to persuade suspicious, doubting and sometimes cynical employment officers that they are vulnerable. The inarticulacy that makes them vulnerable is the precise reason why their vulnerability may not be recognised. They are not pretty; they are not persuasive; and they are not physically obvious in their portrayal of desperation. I do not believe that I am understating the position. We are sentencing them to the world of the street undead, the shadowy drifters, huddled with their dogs for warmth on the streets as we step over them on the way to the theatre. We should not do that to any fellow human being.
Therefore, we have two paths. We can provide—as I believe these Benches would infinitely prefer and, I suspect, in all good faith many Members opposite would prefer—that benefit should continue in full until the appeal has been heard, with a hardship payment continuing, as now happens in the case of unemployment benefit, if the decision goes against the claimant. So there would be a decent minimum competence, although still well below income support level. In that way no one ever again has the right to justify breaking a window because he does not have bread to eat. How can we morally sentence someone for breaking a window if we deny him the legitimate means of getting bread to eat?
If that is not acceptable to the Government—and we shall return to this matter on Report—the Government must take the other route. They must ensure that those unemployed people who are judged by the Employment Service to be neither vulnerable nor in hardship, even though they may be wrong on both counts, nonetheless have speedy access to adjudication and appeals so that their case may be heard. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, in 1993–94 such appeals were taking up to 20 weeks. What are those people to live off in the meanwhile? They will have 20 weeks on the streets. Therefore we say that either the Government must continue to pay benefit until the appeal is heard, and thereafter hardship, or they must support an amendment to ensure an expedited appeals system so that at least those who are genuinely seeking work will have their benefit fully restored. I give my heartfelt support to all these amendments.
Lord Swinfen: I add my voice in support of these amendments. If my noble friend does not like the exact wording of them perhaps he will come back at the next stage with a revised version. I believe that when he looks at the moral question, he will not be able to refuse the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand the concerns expressed both in this short debate and in other debates that we have had to date on this issue. These are important matters. JSA hardship payments will indeed be the safety net in the benefits system for those

887
who are required to be available for work in order to receive benefit. However, the Government's proposals for access to hardship payments should go a long way towards assuaging noble Lords' concerns—although I suspect that they will not do so fully. I suspect that some noble Lords opposite would like to pay benefits in pretty well every circumstance and not have any of the tests that I believe it is right we should apply. I shall treat each amendment in turn. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do so in some detail and try at least to give Members of the Committee something to read and reflect upon tomorrow morning.
I turn first to Amendment No. 71. I can assure the Committee that hardship payments will be available to claimants who need protection in the circumstances set out in the amendment. Under the Government's proposals, where a question has arisen over someone's availability for work, a claimant will be able to be considered for a hardship payment under JSA throughout the period of consideration if he is in one or a number of prescribed vulnerable groups. Where the adjudication decision is taking longer than two weeks, claimants outside the vulnerable groups will also be able to receive JSA if they demonstrate hardship. We believe that is a reasonable and fair approach. The claimant has not demonstrated that he meets the normal conditions for benefit, therefore it cannot be awarded under normal conditions. But the hardship payments will provide the protection for those in vulnerable groups who need this right from the start, and we will extend this to all other claimants if the decision-making process is a lengthy one, and no decision has been reached that they have failed the labour market tests after a fortnight.
Where a decision has been reached that a claimant is not available for work, he will not be entitled to JSA unless he is in one of the prescribed vulnerable groups and demonstrates that hardship would result if no benefit were paid. This is exactly the situation which applies now in cases where a claimant is judged not to be actively seeking work. Hardship payments will protect the vulnerable but there is no reason at all why a healthy, childless claimant should receive benefit if he is not prepared to meet his basic obligations. The taxpayer should not be asked to provide funds to those who refuse to make themselves available, or to look, for work.
I realise that there is perhaps a slight gulf between this side of the Chamber and the other side on this issue, but that is the reasoning behind our decision to go down that particular road.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 1 contain the regulation-making powers to award benefit to people despite their failing to satisfy the labour market conditions. In addition to these provisions, as my noble friend has already indicated, we intend to bring forward amendments to the Bill in the current sitting which will allow payments to be made during the decision-making process, both at the outset of a claim and when an existing award has been suspended because of doubt as to whether a person is continuing to satisfy the jobseeking conditions. I have no doubt that we shall
888
discuss those amendments when we come to them in the schedule. I hope that my efforts on the photocopier have been of a little help to the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 182 seek to define on the face of the Bill matters of detail concerning the definition of groups which will have access to payments and the definition of hardship itself. These are highly detailed matters which are more appropriate to regulations. The regulations in JSA which define the vulnerable groups with access to hardship payments will build on those currently applying in income support to claimants who fail to look for work. That includes households where the claimant or partner is pregnant; where the claimant is a member of a couple with responsibility for a child or young person; and where the claimant or partner qualifies for a disability premium.
We announced in the JSA White Paper that in addition to disabled claimants we would also include those who are sick. People who are incapable of work should normally be claiming an incapacity benefit. However, some claimants who suffer from a serious underlying medical condition, rather than a disability, may be fully capable of work, but may for dietary or other reasons be particularly seriously affected if all benefit is withdrawn. Consequently, we propose that where the claimant or partner has a serious medical condition of that type, they will have access to JSA hardship payments at all times, if they meet the normal hardship tests.
We are also widening the groups who can receive hardship payments to include those with caring responsibilities. We have looked carefully at how to define the group we are concerned to protect—those who provide substantial care to sick, disabled or elderly people. We wish to strike a sensible balance which recognises real need but does not include cases where the care provided is negligible. The clearest point of reference in the benefit system is the qualifying threshold for invalid care allowance, where there is clearly a significant caring responsibility for those in need.
The qualifying condition to ICA is that the person being cared for must be in receipt of the middle or higher rate of disability living allowance care component or of attendance allowance. We propose to set the same condition for carers' access to hardship payments. However, in view of the fact that the claimants involved are claiming a jobseeker's benefit rather than a carer's one, we do not propose to apply the additional ICA qualification of at least 35 hours a week caring. To qualify for access to JSA hardship payments the claimant will need to be providing regular care, but there will be no specific hours rule. Of course, if a carer qualifies for ICA he or she can choose not to be a jobseeker and can qualify for income support as a carer.
The test of hardship will be in relation to the effect on the person cared for, in the same way as the hardship assessment is made in respect of the effect on the child or young person currently in income support. We are confident that those definitions will strike the right balance between protecting the taxpayer from subsidising those whose unemployment results from their own choices and protecting those in vulnerable

889
groups from hardship. The noble Lord's amendment would go further than that by opening up hardship payments to everyone at all times.
I am assuming, as I do in most cases, that the Committee want to hear responses to all amendments in the group. I do not believe the noble Earl spoke to them all but I am sure that what I have said will be considered important by those Members of the Committee who are concerned about this matter.
I turn to consider "hardship". Perhaps the noble Earl will indicate whether or not he wishes me to address the definition of "hardship", which I am happy to do though technically he did not speak to it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will appreciate that I introduced this group of amendments on behalf of my noble friend. Perhaps I may say a word or two about the amendments, since he raised the issue, before he concludes his remarks.
Though I recognise from his earlier remarks that the Minister thinks that we on this side of the Chamber are going for a weak definition of "hardship" and "vulnerable person", Amendments Nos. 180 and 182 express those definitions in extremely tight terms. For example, we make it plain that somebody who claims sickness or disability must have that condition confirmed by a doctor; we make it plain that somebody who is pregnant or has dependent children under the age of 18 should be considered within the group of vulnerable persons.
The Minister kindly said that we would come back to this matter both on the schedules and at Report, and perhaps I can press him on two points which concern Members on all sides of the Committee. The first relates to a consistent problem of what has sometimes been described as "falling between two stools"; that is, those who satisfy our hardship definition but not the Minister's. In other words, they fall within the grey area between qualifying for disablement allowance and qualifying for JSA. We are extremely concerned about that group, and the amendments meet that point.
Secondly, I want to raise with the Minister the remarks he made regarding the people caring for dependent relatives or friends. I was somewhat worried by what he said, though I may not fully have understood it. I believe he said that the definition of caring must fall within the terminology of what is described as "regular" care, which has a requirement of a certain number of hours per week attached to it.
Perhaps I may bring to the Minister's attention that many people who care for elderly or dependent relatives, especially women who care for dependant parents, may do so on a basis that varies from week to week depending on the state of health of the parents. A rigid definition would therefore be extremely harsh. I am sure that the Government recognise, as do many of us in this Chamber, that caring for elderly relatives is a significant contribution to the well-being of this society and that nothing in the Bill should do anything to discredit it.
Lord Swinfen: I want to raise a small point which will help me and perhaps other Members of the Committee. When my noble friend replies on
890
Amendment No. 182, will he say what qualifications an adjudication officer needs for his post and what training he receives? So much depends on the adjudication officer, and that is something we should know.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: At this time of night my noble friend may accept as an answer from me that I went into this matter in some detail on the first day of Committee in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My noble friend may therefore be content to accept a reference from me to Hansard of last Thursday. I hope that that will suffice.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that I said quite clearly that we do not propose to apply the additional ICA qualification of at least 35 hours a week caring. To qualify for access to JSA hardship payments, the claimant will need to be providing regular care, but there will be no specific hours rule. I think that that answers her point.
The noble Baroness also referred to falling between two stools. As my noble friend has said on one or two occasions when we have got into these difficult debates, we shall reflect on what has been said on these matters. No doubt we shall be returning to them at Report stage. We can then perhaps discuss any specific cases that seem to us to be falling between two stools.
With regard to defining hardship, the noble Earl's amendment tries to define how hardship should be assessed. Currently hardship is not defined in regulations but is left completely to the discretion of the adjudication officer. My noble friend Lord Inglewood answered this point in the debate on Amendment No. 59 while I was making my efforts with the photocopier. I wonder whether I can be forgiven for suggesting that your Lordships would just hear me repeating what my noble friend has already said. If I refer your Lordships to that earlier response, I hope that will be satisfactory.
The new clauses proposed under Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 seek to make payment of benefit on account where there is a delay in adjudication or in the determination of an appeal. The Government consider that many of the provisions of these new clauses will be achieved by other means. We have already announced in another place that there will be access to benefit for many of those people who are awaiting adjudication officers' decisions.
Where a person has established entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance but there is a doubt as to whether a sanction should be applied to him—because he left his last job voluntarily or was dismissed for misconduct—payment of the allowance, as has already been discussed, will be made in full pending the decision.
Where the person has not established entitlement because of a doubt over his satisfying the entitlement conditions, we do not believe, as my noble friend has said on a number of occasions, that it is right automatically to pay benefit until the doubt is resolved. Nevertheless, we intend to make benefit available on the grounds of hardship. Hardship payments will be available in the first two weeks for those in certain groups, such as those with dependent children, and will be available to all claimants who demonstrate hardship from the third week.

891
The new clauses would seek to replace these hardship payments by payments of benefit on account. But your Lordships may be aware that provision already exists under Section 5(1) of the Administration Act for payments on account of entitlement to benefit to be made. This amendment would therefore mean double legislative provision for the purposes of the jobseeker's allowance.
However, the proposed new clause would go further than current provision. Existing regulations allow payments on account to be made only where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is, or may be, entitlement to benefit and then only on a discretionary basis. In cases where eventual entitlement to benefit is unlikely, automatic entitlement has never been considered a viable option.
Both this amendment and the existing regulations provide for the eventual recovery of payments on account either from the eventual entitlement to benefit or from other sources where there is no such entitlement. Because payments would be made automatically, inevitably they would be made to many people who were not, in the event, entitled to benefit. The administrative costs, and the difficulties where we have tried to recover benefit in such circumstances, do not lead us to believe that it is a very easy or cheap thing to do. That would be the same if payments on account were enlarged as the amendment would have us do.
The new clause on appeals, which is Amendment No. 102, would considerably extend the appeals procedure. It would allow appeals to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal against decisions of adjudication officers and decisions by the Secretary of State. That would introduce rights of appeal which do not exist for appellants in other benefits. I do not believe that would be equitable. Most decisions by the Secretary of State are excluded as they are mainly on administrative matters, such as how the claimant will be paid.
This clause would provide that, where an appeal has yet to be heard, the Secretary of State may apply to the appeal tribunal chairman for an order that no such payment should be made where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal is likely to be wholly unsuccessful. The proposal suggests further delay and further administrative costs both to the Employment Service and to the Independent Tribunal Service. There would be a greater burden on the chairman. Furthermore, I wonder what criteria the chairman of the tribunal would use when deciding to make a leaving order.
The aim of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency is to ensure that decisions are taken as quickly as possible. We are examining ways of improving the speed of adjudication. But the primary goal must be that decisions whether of adjudication officers or appeal tribunals are taken after proper and full investigation of the facts. That will inevitably lead to delay in some cases. However, to make payments on account while the cases are under consideration, would present, as I have said, a considerable administrative burden, possibly lengthening delays, and could encourage more appeals. I hope that some of the things that I have said have been
892
encouraging, but I accept that some of them have not been. I apologise for the quite long explanation, but there are a number of amendments here. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before we go any further and as the Minister has drawn attention to the time of night, it seems an appropriate occasion to ask how far it is intended that we should go tonight. This is a major Bill and one cannot judge its importance by its length. I have always maintained, and did so at the beginning of the Committee stage, that our timetable is not working. It is now clear that we have a choice between extra time and going a great deal later than it is normally preferred that we should.
I appreciate that there are difficulties in both directions. But the Minister might remember that in the report on the sittings of the House, it was pointed out that it was not possible to use the procedure of shortening time and proceeding by consultation and by meetings in areas of acute political controversy. We have used that procedure where we could and it has been most helpful.
I drew the Government's attention to the major contentious issues in this Bill as early as 27th November and not enough common ground emerged for it even to be worth proceeding to a meeting. We have been finding important things. It has not been a set scrum: it has been open play, passing movements and openings have emerged. We have more important amendments to come than any that we have moved tonight. What is the opinion of the Committee on the best way to proceed? Something needs to be done. We cannot both rise early and complete our timetable.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Is it possible to allow discussions to take place? Perhaps we can go on for just a little while longer until those discussions have taken place and we have seen what emerges. If the noble Earl is satisfied with that, I am content that we proceed in that way and shortly all will be revealed to those of us who are labouring at this Bill.
Is it helpful if I indicate that I have stopped speaking on Amendments Nos. 71, 101, 102, 180 and 182? I believe I invited the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to withdraw her amendment in the light of my detailed explanation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do not make any promises about not returning to some of the issues at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [The jobseeker's agreement]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 6, line 9, leave out from ("officer") to second ("is") in line 10, and insert ("whereby the claimant agrees to carry out a set of reasonable jobseeking activities in return for the provision by the employment officer of appropriate assistance, including relevant training or jobsearch schemes,").
The noble Lord said: If the Committee wants the good news—we have finished Clause 6. If it wants the bad news: on the original plan for this Bill we should have got to this point at 10 o'clock last night. We have been all day on Clause 6 and now we have reached Clause 7. I propose to move my four amendments very quickly.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum tells us that Clause 7,
"governs the jobseeker's agreement which will be entered into by a claimant and an employment officer. It also sets out how questions in relation to the terms of a jobseeker's agreement will be decided, and provides a right of appeal".
That is a very flattering view of what the clause does, because it is a one-sided agreement. Clause 7 prescribes that the employment officer and the adjudication officer will decide what goes into the agreement, and the applicant has no rights. In Amendments Nos. 72, 74, 76 and 82 we are trying to set out what some may describe as a rather disparate set of proposals which, if they were all acceptable to the Committee, would constitute something of a transformation in the jobseeker's agreement, which would then become something of a joint affair.
Amendment No. 72 inserts a definition of a jobseeker's agreement which includes a reasonable set of activities in return for appropriate assistance, including training, from the Employment Service; in other words, the concept would be that the jobseeker's agreement is a joint agreement. That is what an agreement is. One side has advantages and responsibilities; the other side has advantages and responsibilities; and there are obligations on both sides. In Amendment No. 72 we try to spell out what a balanced jobseeker's agreement might contain.
Amendment No. 74 has been grouped with the other amendments, and I saw no particular reason to take it out. But it is somewhat different because it deletes that part of the jobseeker's agreement, now subsection (2), which we are told bans any access to private law as a remedy. I have never understood why the Government want it to be so clear that the worker has no appeal against any part of the jobseeker's agreement, however wrongly it may be constituted from his point of view, and why there should be a subsection which rules out any access to external redress. So we propose to delete that part so that the Minister can tell us why it was put in in the first place.
Amendment No. 76 specifies how the terms of the jobseeker's agreement should assist the employment of the worker and only assist the employment of the worker, which is what the jobseeker's agreement is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be an institution to assist the employee. Either side can be allowed to propose terms and changes in the agreement. Once again in Amendment No. 76 we are trying to specify the kind of jobseeker's agreement which would be a truly joint agreement.
In Amendment No. 82 we add to subsection (6) an obligation—in some ways this is the most significant amendment—to find the worker employment which is appropriate to his age, skills, training or professional attainment. In other words, in the jobseeker's agreement there should be something that is reciprocal and does
894
not merely say that the would-be employee has to be active and available, but that certain minimal, but important, responsibilities lie also with the Employment Service.
One might ask why we need such a transformation in the jobseeker's agreement. The answer comes from the evidence, much of it from the Government themselves, of the way the existing system is working; of the defects of the present jobplan system; of the remarkable evidence in the 1993 survey of the Employment Service when over 3,000 users were interviewed on how the present system works. Of those 3,000, 25 per cent, said they had never received any back-to-work plan; 50 per cent, said that they felt the existing back-to-work plan was useless; and 70 per cent, said that they thought that it was irrelevant.
We are saying that the objective way in which the Employment Service is working suggests that this is the last time one should seek to impose through the jobseeker's agreement a more coercive and bureaucratic system in which one forces people into a position in which they will become increasingly alienated from the operation of the Employment Service.
The Government's central problem is that getting jobs is getting more difficult. It has been getting more difficult throughout the recession and it is still extremely difficult. It is very difficult in particular for male workers and semi-skilled and unskilled workers. There are few full-time jobs of the kind they wish to take. If the Government were logical and humane, far from making more difficult the conditions under which one obtains unemployment benefit they would be making them easier. They would be saying, "However active and available these people are, we do not expect them to get jobs because we have to accept the fact that there aren't many jobs".
Of course, the Government cannot accept that because, if they did, people might ask, for example, "Why aren't you doing what as a Government you did in the 1980s, when through the job creation programme you took half a million people off the unemployment register?". That was a positive reaction to the previous recession but this time we do not have that reaction. We have the pretence that the reason why we have the long-term unemployed is that they are not sufficiently active and available and that they are not working hard enough.
We are saying that the contrary is the case; that if one wanted to bring the Employment Service up to date one would not impose a new form of coercion but would try to embody a joint agreement. That is what the four amendments seek to do. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: As I explained on Second Reading, the agreement will set out what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for work and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA, which will be set out in regulations made under Clause 6 and approved by Parliament. Dealing quickly with one of the points in these amendments, both the jobseeker and the employment officer will be able to propose terms. Moreover, if they cannot reach agreement on the terms, either will be able to refer the proposals to the independent adjudication officer and then on through a defined series

895
of appeals if appropriate. They will determine whether or not they will allow the jobseeker to meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, and whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to comply with them. That is hardly a one-sided arrangement.
The jobseeker's agreement is at the heart of JSA. It is the key to ensuring that jobseekers receive individual help back to work. But it is clear from these amendments that, as the noble Lord concedes, the Opposition want something very different. They want to use the agreement as a means of placing specific, perhaps almost contractual, responsibilities on the employment officer. Certainly, the agreement will have attached information on the help that the Employment Service, as a whole, offers jobseekers in their efforts to find work. And the jobseeker, subject to eligibility rules and availability, will have access to the full range of Government help to get him back to work. Contrary to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that is far from negligible, anticipating the order of 1.5 million opportunities for unemployed people next year. But it cannot be right that the individual employment officer should be bound to provide specific help. The agreement will not stipulate in advance in precise detail what help will be offered to individual jobseekers at particular points in their claim. The amendments are clearly intended to undermine the purpose of the agreement and we believe that they should be rejected.
Lord McCarthy: I did not expect anything else, especially at this time of night. I wish to make two points. First, of course we expect the agreement to be contractual. That is what an agreement is. One of the most annoying aspects is that the Government use a word of which I am very fond; that is, "agreement". It should be called "the jobseeker's imposition". It is not an agreement at all; it is being imposed upon people and they have no response.
Secondly and finally, we are not saying that the contractual obligations should be the personal responsibility of the employment officer; of course not. We are seeking to make them the responsibility of the Government. But you cannot make this Government responsible for anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert:
("() A person shall not impose a condition upon a jobseeker, under this Act, if that person has a direct financial interest in that condition not being, or being, fulfilled.").
The noble Earl said:
Before I do anything with Amendment No. 73, may I ask what decisions have been reached about our future business for the rest of the evening?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: All Members of the Committee will know that we are making slow progress. Equally, Members of the Committee know that there is a lot of important business to be dealt with on Thursday in
896
relation to the Bill. If we could make some further progress this evening, that would ease the problems which may arise on Thursday. I hope that we can make progress this evening, before we eventually draw stumps. Speaking for myself and in particular for my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is to deal with the next amendments, we shall try to keep our remarks as brief as we can, consistent with answering the points made. If we all try to do that, we should make progress before it gets too late, and that would relieve us of difficulties on Thursday, when there are important issues to be discussed.
Earl Russell: Is close of play being defined in terms of amendments to be reached or in terms of an hour for drawing stumps?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is almost like one of the amendments to the Bill. May I tell the noble Earl that it will be defined in regulations? It is not in my hands entirely but it would be extremely useful if we could reach the end of Clause 8. That seems to me to be a compromise between the point which we hoped to reach and where we are at this moment.
Earl Russell: Amendment No. 73 not moved.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 73A to 76 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("in the officer's opinion").
The noble Earl said: This amendment proposes simply to delete the words "in the officer's opinion". I shall not explain again why I want to do that, because the Committee knows it well enough. But I should like to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his explanation of his concerns about the role of the employment officer in the drawing up of jobseeker's agreements. I believe, however, that they are misplaced. I should like to take the opportunity to explain our proposals in some detail. I hope thereby to reassure the noble Earl that his amendment is unnecessary.
When someone makes a claim for JSA, he will be given an interview with a trained employment officer. Together, they will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement which will give the jobseeker his best prospects of getting back to work. We expect that in most cases the jobseeker and the employment officer will quickly reach agreement. But, in cases where they cannot, the employment officer will not have the power to decide that the jobseeker's proposals are unsatisfactory. I make it quite clear that that will be a matter for the independent adjudication officer, not the employment officer.
If, in the employment officer's opinion, the jobseeker's proposals would not allow him to satisfy the availability for work or actively seeking employment conditions set out in legislation, he must refer the case forthwith to the adjudication officer. If the adjudication officer determines in the jobseeker's favour, that will decide the matter. The employment officer will enter into an agreement on the terms proposed by the jobseeker.
I fear that the noble Earl may have been misled by the use of the word "opinion" here. It does not mean that the employment officer can simply take his own view on the

897
merits of the case. The position is the opposite of that. If, in his view, what is proposed by the claimant would not meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, he must pass the matter to the independent adjudication officer for a decision. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: I know perfectly well that the Government refer to two sorts of amendment only: the unnecessary and the wrecking. I am not at all sure whether I am pleased that the present amendment is considered unnecessary rather than wrecking. I really do not see that the employment officer is in a good position to form a view. However, as I have not moved Amendment No. 73, I am not in a position to explain one of the reasons involved. Similarly, I shall not take Members of the Committee into debates on hardship payments yet again. The Minister knows my views and he can, therefore, assume that they are what they are. I believe that he understands them well enough. The Minister's response is totally unsatisfactory. But, at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 84 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 85 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 inclusive.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 6, tine 26, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: The above is another delegated-powers amendment. The Government say in their memo that subsection (7) contains a power for regulations to prescribe the shortest and longest periods that a claimant may restrict his availability in respect of jobsearch during the early days of his claim, The Government wish to retain the flexibility to change that period as "circumstances require". Why do they wish to change that period? Do they want to make it longer or shorter? What sort of circumstances would, in the Government's opinion, require them to do so? Further, why is the department entitled to make law without Parliament being able to give its consent? I know that I have asked that question before, but it keeps on recurring and I have not yet heard an answer that satisfies me. I beg to move.
Lord Ingle wood: We will be carrying forward the current provision in which for up to 13 weeks from the beginning of a claim, jobseekers may restrict their availability and jobsearch to their usual occupation, if they have one, and to their usual level of pay. The period is to be specified in the jobseeker's agreement. The period should also correspond with the "permitted period" provided for in Clause 17 during which a claimant may refuse job offers outside his usual occupation without sanction. The length of the permitted period is determined by the adjudication officer in accordance with regulations.
If the correspondence between the provisions in the jobseeker's agreement and the Clause 17 period is to be maintained, it is clearly important that regulations under Clause 7 should specify the shortest and longest periods
898
in the same way as regulations will do under Clause 17; the two must not come out of step, otherwise the determination of a permitted period might become unworkable. That is our concern.
Nevertheless, we accept that the correspondence between the provisions in Clause 7 and Clause 17 is not perfect. We are, therefore, considering returning to the provision at Report stage with an amendment which clarifies the relationship as regards the availability condition, the jobseeker's agreement and the sanctions provisions. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his response. Clearly I must wait to see his amendment which I shall read with care. I cannot say that I am in the least satisfied with what I have been told. For example, I have not been told under what circumstances the Government might want to vary the period or why; or, indeed, whether it is to be longer or shorter. Above all, I am listening over and over again to a department which believes that it can make the law without reference to Parliament.
Reference to Parliament under a regulation procedure is purely nugatory. We look at it; we speak. Like the Social Security Advisory Committee, we express our opinions and we have no more effect than that committee has when it moves that regulations be not proceeded with. I really will ask the Government to cease talking about parliamentary sovereignty until they are capable of practising it. But nevertheless, at this time of night, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but we will hear more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert ("which, in the case of a disabled person who, within the 8 weeks prior to his claim for jobseeker's allowance has been determined capable of all work, shall be a period of not less than 13 weeks").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would enable people who come off incapacity benefit to sign on for jobseeker's allowance to still have a 13-week permitted period within which to seek work in their usual occupation. At least 150,000 long-term sick and disabled people are estimated to come off incapacity benefits and sign on for jobseeker's allowance in its first year. People who are likely to come off benefit are those who fail the new all work test of incapacity normally applied after 28 weeks of being incapable of work. Notionally this test, which will assess the claimant's ability to undertake certain functions such as reaching, walking etc., is supposed to show if someone is capable of any work. Those who fail the test and who will therefore not be entitled to incapacity benefits will be assumed to be capable of all work, even though they may score only just below the threshold level of 15 for incapacity benefit. Someone who scores less than that figure will not be eligible for incapacity benefit but could have a considerable disability; in other words, for example a person who had had an involuntary episode of lost or

899
altered consciousness at least twice within the past six months before the claim would score only some 12 points.
Thousands of people with substantial disabilities will be expected to sign on for jobseeker's allowance. Normally unemployed people have a permitted period of 13 weeks within which to restrict their availability and job search activities to their usual occupation, the conditions applying to that occupation and the appropriate level of remuneration in that occupation. Others without a usual occupation have to widen their job search from the start of their claim. Paragraph 4.7 of the jobseeker' s White Paper confirms that the intention is to carry forward these provisions on to jobseeker's allowance. This amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people coming off incapacity benefit who are notionally considered to be capable of all work have a similar period of grace within which to consider searching for work within their previous occupation without having to be available for any work from the beginning of their claim. I beg to move.
Lord Ingle wood: As we made clear in our proposals for JSA in the White Paper, we will be carrying forward the current provision of the permitted period in which jobseekers may restrict their availability and job search to their usual occupation, if they have one, and to their usual level of pay for up to 13 weeks from the beginning of a claim. Our experience since 1989, when the permitted period was introduced, is that a maximum of 13 weeks is a reasonable period during which to restrict job search in this way. After 13 weeks, jobseekers should be prepared to widen their horizons rather than hold out for a specific job.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen would provide that disabled people who have been found capable of work in the test for incapacity benefit in the eight weeks before claiming JSA could not be given a permitted period of less than 13 weeks. I do not think this amendment is necessary, and indeed for some disabled people it may not be desirable. To take up my noble friend's point, we have made it very clear throughout our deliberations over the proposals for the availability rules for JSA that people with disabilities will be able to restrict their availability in line with their mental or physical condition. That may mean that some disabled people with relatively severe problems, but who are still capable of some work, will be able to place substantial restrictions on their availability. But, if they are to achieve the goal of getting back to work which they share with other non-disabled jobseekers, they should make themselves available for as many jobs as their disability allows. We agree that in the first period of unemployment the best prospects of returning to work may lie in the area of the person's usual occupation. But after a maximum of 13 weeks they must be prepared to look more widely. People with disabilities should be treated no differently in this respect than able-bodied jobseekers, nor would most expect to be.
Lord Swinfen: I am not sure that I agree with what my noble friend said, but I shall not pursue the matter further at this time of night. I shall consider what he said and reserve my right to return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
11 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 91 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 to 95 inclusive.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 6, line 28, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
The noble Earl said: I am afraid that even at this time of night this amendment has a high priority. It proposes to delete subsections (8) and (9), which provide for the making of regulations for the referral of cases to the adjudication officer. Of most concern is subsection (9) (b) which states that regulations may provide,
"criteria to which the adjudication officer is to have regard".
Throughout the course of the Bill we have been reassured about its potentially arbitrary implications by endless reiteration of the adjudication officer. But everything depends on which law the adjudication officer is to base his decision. We are now told that the adjudication officer is to "have regard" to criteria to be laid down in regulations.
That reminds me of the favourite example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—the company involved in the South Sea Bubble, which took in capital and sold shares for a purpose "hereafter to be disclosed". The adjudication officer will make his judgments under law hereafter to be disclosed. I do not see how a self-respecting Parliament can approve that.
I also wonder why the Government have chosen words as mild as "have regard to". We have had a number of debates in this Chamber about the significance of the words "have regard to". I am not at all convinced that under those words the adjudication officer will be bound to keep any systematic law. If not, he is a petty tyrant. I only hope that he encounters some particularly pertinacious village Hampden before he is through.
We are told in the Government's memorandum that under this clause it is the intention of the Government that the powers created in this and the subsequent subsection constitute a substantial and systematic legislative framework. It is a substantial and legislative framework to which we have no opportunity to consent. What sort of legislation is that? We passed a humble Address today congratulating ourselves on our parliamentary government. I begin to think of Parkinson's law that when the history of an institution comes to be written it is on the edge of disappearance. What sort of parliamentary government is this? It does not seem to make very much sense.
In the Government's memorandum we are told that all the powers in this subsection relate to the process by which it will be conducted. I really cannot see that that is anything other than a misleading statement. Creating the criteria by which judgment is to be made is a good deal more far-reaching than simply organising the details of the process. If these criteria are so vague and uncertain as the words "have regard to" might imply, I cannot help wondering whether we shall have a great deal more in the

901
way of judicial reviews than either public funds or the interests of claimants, or indeed the occupation of a great deal of time, might explain.
In effect, these criteria are the principal point of the whole Bill, the grounds on which people are to be disentitled to benefit. If we cannot consent to that I do not see what we are here for. We are spending a good deal of our night involved in a good deal of hard work, and if we arc to be deprived of our basic right to say "Content" or "Not Content" we are in pretty much of a mess.
I have had no answer all evening to any of the questions on how we can give or withhold our consent. Sooner or later, even at this time of night, I may start dividing the Committee because I have not received that answer. We really need an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to assure my noble friend that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not the only person in this Chamber who is concerned with the very considerable amount of power to make regulations in the Bill. It may be a sign of an extremely idly and badly drafted Bill that it is written in such a way that it needs so many regulations; or a sign that the Bill had been written so quickly that insufficient thought had been given to it.
I am becoming seriously concerned, as is the noble Earl, about the amount of secondary legislation that we are being asked to agree on the nod—very often without the proper opportunity to discuss it, and certainly without the opportunity to amend it. There is, too, a convention that we should not even divide on regulations which have been passed in another place. My noble friends must give this matter very serious thought before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may begin with a point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It was the concluding point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. To some extent I shall go over matters that we discussed at the beginning of our debates.
Previous legislation in this area of the law is in many ways in its structure similar to that which we propose in the Bill. After all, the Bill takes over and replaces a significant element of existing social security legislation. One of the characteristics of that form of legislation—it has not occurred suddenly but over the years—is that it contains a considerable amount of secondary legislation in order to provide flexibility in the system. As we discussed earlier, one of the problems we face this evening is that we are discussing the matter without the report of the scrutiny committee.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a number of important contributions to the debate which included reference to the way in which noble Lords deal with these matters, the conventions which apply in this Chamber when dealing with secondary legislation and how they vary from those which apply in another place.
We have specified the particular details of how we intend to deal with those matters in Clause 33 of the Bill to which we shall come later. During the earlier debate, I said that we would consider the matter carefully bearing in mind the comments made at the time. I hope at this late stage that that at least reiterates and explains the general position which the Government take.
902
There are two aspects regarding the noble Earl's amendment. The first is what I might describe as the smaller aspect. It is a point that the noble Earl made with reference to Clause 7(9) (b), which provides that regulations made under Clause 7(8) may in particular set out the criteria to which the adjudication officer is to have regard in making a determination on the proposed jobseeker's agreement. The criteria will be whether the terms of the proposed agreement are such that if the jobseeker complied with them, he would satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA, and whether it is reasonable to expect him to have to comply with them.
This subsection will not go beyond that. It cannot and will not be used to add any extra conditions. It is simply them to ensure that the intention of the primary legislation is fully reflected in the drafting of the regulations.
Them is a wider point which is that the amendment seeks to remove Clause 7(8) which would take away the basic right of access to adjudication on the agreement. That is something which we are committed to providing in regulations under Clause 7(8). We believe that that would be a most serious and, I imagine, unforeseen consequence of the amendment. It also seeks to remove Clause 7(9) which makes clear that the adjudication procedure will, among other things, include the right of either party to instigate a referral to the adjudication officer and the right of the adjudication officer to backdate agreements if he considers that that would be appropriate. We do not believe that it would be sensible to remove the provisions.
Furthermore, the intention behind Clause 7(9) (d) is that the adjudication officer should be able to make constructive suggestions as to what is needed to make the proposed agreement satisfactory. That will greatly speed up the process of getting a satisfactory agreement.
The alternative which the amendment appears intending to bring about will be for the adjudication officer simply to tell the jobseeker that his proposals are not satisfactory, without offering any suggestions as to how they could be made more satisfactory.
We do not think that the amendment would do anything for the jobseeker, and we believe it would remove his right to independent adjudication of the agreement by dismantling the adjudication procedure that has been specially made for dealing with jobseeker's agreements. We cannot believe that to be in anyone's interests, let alone the jobseeker's.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. I take his point about dismantling the adjudication procedure. That was not my intention. I had assumed that if I removed the regulation-making power, the Government might spell out what their intentions were in primary legislation. I would then have been prepared to be as co-operative as I reasonably could about it.
I take the Minister's point that it did not happen suddenly. It is true that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and maybe in the past we have not been sufficiently vigilant. I accept that the basic criteria remain availability for work and actively seeking work. I shall not repeat all I said on the first amendment—God forbid! But the point keeps arising that we are dealing with the

903
Government attempting to spell out in greater and greater detail what should be taken as evidence for those two criteria. It remains my conviction that the Government have gone down a deeply mistaken drafting road, and they have done grave damage to the Bill in the process.
Nevertheless, I can understand some of the arguments the Minister makes. Were Ito be certain that I would be able to vote on those criteria if I did not approve of them, then I would be prepared to reach a compromise on the rest of the argument. I was particularly interested in what the Minister said about the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Shepherd. I saw a faint glimmer of hope in those remarks, although I would not presume to misinterpret the Minister by taking it as anything more than that. I also agree entirely with what the Minister said—that it would be improper to reach any final decision on the matter before we received the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. For that reason, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert:
("No adjudication officer shall give a judgement creating a new condition for eligibility which has not been approved by Act of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: The purport of the amendment is to ensure that regulations shall not create any new condition of eligibility for benefit. It is my long-standing concern that people should not he disentitled to benefit by the force of regulation.
In replying at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said something about this matter which I think is slightly encouraging. It is buried somewhere in the papers I have here; I am sure that the noble Lord remembers it as well as I do. The question is not only whether he is creating a new formal condition, but also whether he is taking the business of spelling out what shall he evidence of the two basic conditions so far down the road that it amounts to a new condition.
This matter is a little like the famous problem of Sir John Suckling's silk stockings, which had been damed so often that none of the original material survived. The question is: were they or were they not a new pair of stockings? Similarly, if we have more and more expansion of what shall be taken as evidence of actively seeking employment, we shall have to ask where in effect a new condition has been created. So, when I ask the Minister whether he can repeat the undertaking that there will be no new condition of eligibility for benefit under regulations, he can take it to apply to new conditions built up by elaborating upon and expanding the old as well as to completely new legislation. Both of those are serious questions and the Committee deserves an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The agreement is the key to ensuring that each jobseeker is treated as an individual and receives individual help. The agreement will set out what that jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for
904
work and actively seeking employment conditions. It will provide a focus for discussing his or her personal plan to find work.
As I explained at Second Reading, it will not mean individual terms and conditions for receipt of JSA. Clause 7 of the Bill makes it clear that the agreement will set out what the jobseeker will do to meet the availability for work and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA. If the employment officer and the jobseeker reach agreement on that, that is well and good. But if the jobseeker is not satisfied with the terms being proposed to him for his agreement, regulations will enable him to refer the proposal to the adjudication officer.
As I understand it, the point that the noble Earl is anxious to establish is that the matters that may be contained in the jobseeker's agreement under this heading will not in any way go further than the criteria laid down in Clause 1(2) (a) and (c) of the Bill. I can give an undertaking that the subject matter of the agreement cannot go beyond the wider terms of reference contained in the legislation in respect of Clause 1(2) (a) and (b) so far as the requirements to satisfy being available for employment and being actively seeking employment are concerned. I hope that my remarks will satisfy the noble Earl and provide a proper reply to the question that he asked.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. It contains an element of encouragement. But we still have to pursue further the question of how far the evidence for the two basic tests may constitute a new test.
Let us take the example in Clause 6(3) that we debated this afternoon relating to behaviour and appearance. If I follow the line in the Minister's mind, I believe he would tell us that that did not constitute a new condition because it was simply a new way of looking at the basic condition of actively seeking employment. If he thinks along that particular tram line, then it is rather easier for him to give this assurance in complete sincerity than it is for me to accept it. As I look at that from outside, from my point of view it looks remarkably like a new condition for benefit. If I take that as a new condition for benefit, along that line of defining the question, would the Minister still be able to assure me that in the interpretation no new conditions for benefit will be created? Before he answers, I should say that I ask this question with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his further questioning, which quite rightly is defining the position which I am taking here at the Dispatch Box. I am fully conscious of the doctrine in Pepper v. Hart and I am very anxious to have that properly in mind in the reply that I give. The difficulty that I have in responding to the noble Earl's question is the way in which he described my mind as working - if my mind can be worthy of such a name; let us say the way in which whatever it is between my ears works. On that basis he accepts that the reply that I gave to him is entirely consistent with the proposition that I enunciated earlier.
In responding to the noble Earl's question, the problem I have is that, if he looks at the matter in the way in which he is looking at the matter and if he reaches the conclusion on the facts that he reached, then I entirely accept the point

905
that he is making. If, on that basis, I accept the point that he is making, I cannot then from his perspective, it seems to me, absolutely, finally and unequivocally state the proposition in the way in which I was looking at it, which would give him the same answer as the one that I reached. I hope that that will be at least of some help to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: I am extremely grateful for that very careful and thoughtful reply. We have two different and sincere ways of looking at the question. I suspect that in the end it will have to be resolved in the courts and that resolution may he very expensive. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (i).
The noble Lord said: The jobseeker's agreement is an innovation and the adjudication arrangements made in respect of it should reflect that. That is why the Bill provides a tailor-made adjudication procedure.
Perhaps if I speak to Amendments Nos. 94, 96, 97, 98 and 99 together, the whole thing will gel. Amendments Nos. 94 and 96 concern review of an adjudication officer's determination or direction by a different adjudication officer. Ministers have made clear in another place that it is our intention that either the jobseeker or the employment officer should have the right to such a review if they arc dissatisfied with the first adjudication officer's determination or direction. We believe that this is an important stage of the adjudication procedure for jobseeker's agreements. The effect of the amendments will be that any regulations made under subsection (8) will be required to make provision for such a review.
It has always been our intention that if the jobseeker is still dissatisfied after the review, he should have the right of appeal to the social security appeal tribunal. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 is to make clear that claimants must pursue their case in the right order; that is. by first seeking a review and only then by appeal to the SSAT.
These amendments will introduce additional clarity into the Bill and they reflect a wholly benign intent. I commend them to the Committee on that basis.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 99:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert:
("() for the review of the adjudication officer's determination or any direction given by him, by a different adjudication officer, on the application of the claimant or of an employment officer;").
Page 7, line 19, after ("determination") insert ("on a review").
Page 7, line 20, at end insert ("on a review").
Page 7, line 21, at end insert:
("(bb) in relation to a social security appeal tribunal determining such an appeal, similar to any provision made by virtue of subsection (9) (d) or (e);").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Variation of jobseeker's agreement]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: The provision that this amendment proposes to leave out provides that,
"A jobseeker's agreement may be varied…by agreement".
I have no objection to "agreement". My reason for moving the amendment, is that I am not certain whether this is repugnant to Section 1(2) (b), which says that it is a condition of the jobseeker's allowance that the claimant,
"has entered into a jobseeker's agreement which remains in force".
No jobseeker's agreement; no benefit.
I am questioning whether "agreement", as properly understood, can ever be achieved, or whether it is achieved by duress. In fact, are the words repugnant to the rest of the Bill? Is the Bill, as it used to be put, felo de se? I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I shall confine myself to endeavouring to reply to the noble Earl's question. Under Clause 1(2) (b) a jobseeker's agreement must be in force for a claimant to be entitled to a jobseeker's allowance. This provision is not inconsistent with the rest of the Bill because these procedures only take effect where there is an agreement already in force. We are therefore talking about an existing agreement being varied, rather than an agreement coming to an end and another agreement being substituted for it. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that that meets his point.
Earl Russell: It is a serious attempt to meet my point. I am not altogether sure that it does. An agreement which is reached under duress cannot be validated by subsequent amendment, even if the duress continues. I am in a real difficulty in this regard and we shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 8, line 4, at end insert:
("() A proposal to vary a jobseeker's agreement may be made by a claimant at any time and within 7 days of making such a proposal he shall be granted an interview with an employment officer to discuss the variation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 104, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. The idea behind Amendment No. 104 is that a jobseeker's agreement should be something which can be revised by the claimant; that in fact the claimant can revise it at any time and, within seven days of his making such a proposal, he should be granted an interview with an employment officer to discuss the variation. Amendment No. 106 says that the matter should be referred "forthwith" to an adjudication officer.
At the moment the clause only provides for future regulations and those future regulations may allow for a variation—we do not know because we have not seen

907
them. But the clear balance of power, as we have been arguing all evening, lies with the employment officer rather than with the applicant for benefit or for employment. We want to strengthen the hand of the applicant. We are saying that an applicant who wants to change the agreement should be able to obtain an interview, and if there is no agreement from the employment officer then he should be able to obtain adjudication within seven days.
We have had many examples of the kind of advantages which may result for an applicant if this kind of flexibility can be built into the agreement. For example, a claimant may originally put into the agreement that he will attend the Jobcentre three times a week. Subsequently he may conclude that it is of more use, rather than going to a Jobcentre on those days, to go to a library and apply to advertisements through newspapers. In that case he may ask for a variation in the jobseeker's agreement. Or he may want to change his options with regard to training and employment programmes. For example, when a claimant signs on he may put into the agreement that he will go to a job club. But after five months he may decide that he does not want to do that; he would rather go on to a part-time education course which he thinks may be more helpful in enabling him to return to work. If the two amendments were carried the claimant would have an opportunity to ask for a change in the agreement and within seven days to have an interview. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: Amendment No. 104 seeks to bring the detailed operation of the variation of agreements into the Bill. We do not believe that this is the right place for such detail.
Jobseekers will be able to vary their agreements at any time. It is not envisaged that variations will be necessary between advisory interviews. A jobseeker will, however, be able to seek a variation if it is appropriate. If, for example, a lorry driver who has been looking for general driving work loses his licence he would need to amend his agreement to reflect the change in his jobsearch plans.
The jobseeker will be granted an appointment as soon as possible. In most cases that will be in less than seven days. We do not, however, believe it will be sensible to use primary legislation in a way that could easily impede the operational flexibility of the Employment Service. For example, it would be most unwelcome if the Employment Service had to see someone wanting to vary his agreement in preference to someone who had not yet made a claim. The jobseeker who wants to vary his agreement will remain eligible for JSA provided he continues to meet the availability and actively seeking conditions, and his agreement is still in force. The agreement will be a flexible document. It does not impose a straitjacket on the jobseeker's search for work. This amendment perhaps assumes a greater rigidity than will be the case. That is why we do not support it.
Turning to Amendment No. 106, the adjudication procedure for proposed jobseeker's agreements and variations to agreements is set out in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. Following views expressed by Opposition Members in another place, the Bill was amended by
908
government amendment to Clause 7 to enable regulations to provide that referrals of proposed agreements to the adjudication officer must be made "forthwith". This brought the procedure into line with Section 20 of the Administration Act. There had never been any question that referrals of agreements should be made less speedily than other referrals. The amendment simply clarified that. We are therefore prepared to accept this amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for proposing it.
Lord McCarthy: It just shows that one has to keep going! I am glad that the Government intend to accept Amendment No. 106. In that case I do not feel particularly annoyed that they do not intend to accept Amendment No. 104. It is typical of the Government that they say that these variations can be made at any time. They say "if appropriate" and "as soon as possible". It is also rather typical that the example given by the noble Lord of someone who can change his jobseeker's agreement is where he has lost his licence. Some miserable thing has to happen. Nevertheless, something happy has happened, and I am very glad that the Government have accepted the second amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 105 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 106 to 109.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 8, line 15, after ("referred") insert ("forthwith").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 8, line 34. after ("shall") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109. These amendments parallel Amendment No. 99, which your Lordships have agreed in respect of the powers of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal where the adjudication officer is given powers by regulations to be made under Clause 7. In the case of these amendments they apply to the variation of an agreement. It is only right that the arrangements for varying an agreement are the same as those for drawing up the original agreement.
I should perhaps start by saying that the structure of Clause 8 is such that the amendments your Lordships have also agreed in relation to review of an agreement—Amendments Nos. 96 to 98—will apply automatically to issues arising in relation to the proposed variation of an agreement. Subsection (7) provides that. As with an original agreement, the jobseeker who is dissatisfied with a variation to his agreement will have the right to a review by a second adjudication officer and then, if he is still dissatisfied, the right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. The amendment makes clear that the Social Security Appeal Tribunal will have the same powers as the adjudication officer to direct the terms on which the claimant and the employment officer are to

909
enter into an agreement to vary the jobseeker's agreement. It also enables the tribunal to make such direction as it considers appropriate to backdate the coming into effect of an agreement. Finally, the tribunal will also have the same powers to terminate an agreement if a claimant fails to comply with a direction given by it within a prescribed period. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 108 and 109:
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("which shall be").
Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("other than by virtue of paragraph (bb);
910
(b) make provision, in relation to a social security appeal tribunal determining an appeal against the adjudication officer's determination, or against any direction given by him, similar to any provision made by virtue of subsection (6)(b) or (c) or section 7(9) (e);").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Transport Security: Annual Report
  Transport Security: Annual Report