Sitting of 27 April 1995

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 4 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Pig Industry
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to visit a pig farm in Northern Ireland to discuss the future of the pig industry. [19607]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the position of the pig sector with the Ulster Farmers Union at a meeting on 31 March, when he invited the president to arrange for him a day of representative visits.
    Ms Hoey: I thank the Minister and I urge him to visit one or two smaller rural pig farms in Northern Ireland, where I am sure he will be very welcome. Is he aware of the concern among Northern Ireland pig farmers about the cost of the EC directive for Aujeszky's disease among pigs? The cost per pig is being borne by individual farmers. The pig industry and individual farmers have to bear those costs, yet the dairy industry does not have to pay for the vaccination of individual cows. Is the Minister also aware that the Republic of Ireland claims that its pig industry cannot afford to implement the regulations? Will he do something to help the small pig farmer in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss those matters when he meets pig farmers and the National Farmers Union in Ulster. In respect of Aujeszky's disease, as I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the Department of Agriculture introduced the eradication scheme on 1 September last year, following extensive consultation with the industry, particularly the Ulster Farmers Union. Implementation of the scheme is progressing satisfactorily and it is clearly important to pig producers.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister really understand the great importance of the pig industry to Northern Ireland, whose high-quality animals and semen are exported all over the world? Does he not realise that
    966
    a tremendous industry is in great danger of collapsing, as farmers have just experienced about 18 months of the worst returns anyone can remember?
    Mr. Ancram: I fully appreciate the hon. Member's points, not least the importance of the pig industry to Northern Ireland. I am sure that, given his own agricultural knowledge, he will appreciate that pig production suffers, and will suffer, from cyclical trends. I am sure that he is also aware that there has been a recent improvement in producer returns, which I hope will be a benefit. In particular, prices have risen from 92p per kilo at the beginning of the year to 107p per kilo—an increase of 10 per cent. I hope that that will be reflected in increased confidence within the industry.

    Punishment Beatings
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made to counter punishment beatings carried out by terrorist organisations. [19608]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Punishment beatings are criminal conspiracies; all such criminal attacks are very serious crimes. The Royal Ulster Constabulary makes every effort to prevent those atrocious crimes and bring offenders to justice.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of just how extremely serious punishment beatings are and that 90 have been reported since the ceasefire? Of that number, 51 were inflicted by republicans and 39 by loyalists. Such savagery is unacceptable. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the topic must be put on the agenda in forthcoming talks with both sides?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that she says. I assure her and the House that Ministers treat those appalling attacks with the greatest seriousness. They are totally unacceptable; they are a denial of human rights and an affront to the concepts of democracy. During the exploratory talks, my right hon. and learned Friend emphasises his condemnation of the attacks and urges all with any influence in the matter to bring them to an end.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I am sure that the Minister is aware that my constituency suffers more than most from punishment beatings. Has he considered establishing some form of confidential, covert operation with the assistance of victims, to combat that scourge in our community?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the plight of victims. The Royal Ulster Constabulary will best be effective in diminishing or reducing such unlawful acts if the public help by giving the police information. They can do so in confidence, and the RUC is innovative in looking for the best ways of working with the community to ensure that persons who commit such crimes are arrested and taken before the courts.
    Mr. Barnes: In addition to and allied with the savage beatings, there is the expulsion from Northern Ireland by terrorist groups of many Catholics and Protestants, who are not allowed to return; it is a form of exclusion order. Many organisations, especially Families Against Intimidation and

    967
    Terror, fight against both savage beatings and expulsions. Would it not be useful to provide such organisations with extra funding for their valuable work?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is widespread condemnation of such evil acts within Northern Ireland and without. I hope that all who have influence on the persons who perpetuate such acts will use their voices to urge that those acts should end. Voluntary organisations do much good work in the community, often bravely. The organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred already receives some public money, and I met its representatives recently to advise how it might attract further funding. Such organisations do a worthwhile job, and I am always willing to consider how they might reasonably be assisted to continue their work.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report progress on dismantling the apparatus of terrorism. [19609]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Despite the welcome cessation of violence, I can report no evident dismantling of the apparatus of terrorism. How that may be achieved is rightly for discussion in exploratory dialogue with parties closely associated with paramilitary organisations.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Given that terrorism will be a continuing and permanent scourge of civilisation, will the Secretary of State enter discussions with the Clinton Administration with a view to designing measures to extricate all terrorists, including those posing as members of political parties, and removing from their hands all instruments of terror and destruction?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I noted, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did, that some time ago President Clinton described the need for a worldwide campaign against terrorism. I do not doubt for one minute that recent tragic events have reinforced that opinion, which we certainly share.
    Mr. Hunter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what is important is not only the dismantling of the apparatus of terrorism but maintaining the momentum in political developments? Was not my right hon. and learned Friend's recent invitation to the constitutional parties to take part in bilateral talks a significant and timely step? Will he make encouraging such discussions with and between the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland a priority?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I much agree with my hon. Friend that political progress is an important component in protecting people against the scourge of terrorism, and I look forward to beginning the talks to which he referred. This is a single-track process—not a dual-track process, as I sometimes see alleged—to substantive political talks. That single track is open to all parties with a substantial electoral mandate that establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and show that they abide by democratic means.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware how difficult have been the past eight months. Nevertheless, does it come as a surprise when I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that public perception of the
    968
    Government's handling of the peace process of late has been one of vacillation, clumsiness and a lack of àny defined strategy? Would he be even more surprised to learn that at times the Government look uncertain, if not foolish, in some of their utterances?
    Given the centrality of this issue to the lives of the people in the north of Ireland, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House how he intends to move from the present point to the round table negotiations, the only context within which the fundamental questions about an absence of violence and the principle of consent can be put to those parties and answers irrevocably gained?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the importance of proceeding to round table talks, resuming after an interval of some two or more years. I think it extremely important, and I believe that the people of Northern Ireland think it very important, that their politicians should be talking to see whether we can achieve that overall political accommodation which was our objective two or three years ago.
    I heard what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. I am quite used to a variety of criticisms being made. I should be surprised if this is the one area in Northern Ireland politics in which there is the total agreement that he suggests; but I do my best, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, to secure the maintenance of the important principles, one of which, and only one of which, is that we do not sit down and negotiate the political structures on the future of Northern Ireland with people who, by implication, reserve the right to resort once again to violence.
    Ms Mowlam: The Labour party welcomes the exploratory dialogue between Sinn Fein and Ministers, and we also welcome the statement, which I think the Secretary of State just made, that no political party can expect to participate in full-scale talks about the future of Northern Ireland while it retains, by inference or implication—if I understood what the Secretary of State was saying—the use of violence.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House the statement that he just made—that he does not see inclusive talks happening in under two years? I think that that is what he said. I think that there was some confusion among Opposition Members and it might be useful if the Secretary of State clarified that matter at this point.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very glad to clarify that. I referred to talks that concluded two or more years ago. I certainly hope that round table discussions will resume very much sooner than that. I welcome the hon. Lady's confirmation of the principle that I described a moment or two ago. It is essential not only that we do all that we can to get those talks resumed but that we maintain the principle which I have described. If we do not, we send a signal that we are prepared to sit down with people who, if they do not get what they want in democratic discussion, are prepared to go outside and resort once again, or support the use once again, of armaments. That is fatal to democracy and to the interests of those who have submitted themselves to the disciplines of constitutional government.
    Mr. Robathan: Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), may I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend's and

    969
    his hon. Friends' skilful handling of the peace process so far? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the time has come for some tangible evidence of good faith from terrorist organisations, particularly the major terrorist organisation—the IRA, linked with Sinn Fein? When does he think that we might see some movement towards it actually handing in some of its huge stockpile of arms?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning. Of course, he is right to say that this is the time for some tangible evidence of good faith. He will recall that the Government have consistently said that, in order to make the transition from exploratory dialogue to participation in the substantive political talks, a willingness to support the principle of decommissioning has to be declared. In addition, some substantial progress has to be made, including tangible decommissioning of arms, sufficient to signify the beginning of a process—which must be on-going—and the good faith of which my hon. Friend spoke.

    Schools and Colleges
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to determine the total amount of public expenditure required at this time, to bring schools and colleges to an acceptable level of maintenance, to enable schools and colleges to comply with health and safety regulations and the demands of the national curriculum. [19610]
    Mr. Ancram: My Department regularly reviews the capital needs of the education estate in consultation with the education and library boards, individual schools and voluntary authorities. Each year, my Department assesses the priorities within which decisions are then reached, subject to available resources.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that in the North Eastern education and library board area about £30 million is urgently needed to deal effectively with the backlog of maintenance, to comply with health and safety regulations and to meet the needs of either new or refurbished facilities for science, information technology, art and design, home economics and, indeed, technology itself? Is not at least another £60 million needed for new build and major capital development? If the position is similar across the five boards in Northern Ireland, about £500 million is urgently needed.
    I urge the Minister to obtain that level of funding from any peace dividend and to bring our schools and colleges up to date. Above all, we need to create employment and provide hope for those who are unemployed. We also need to revitalise our construction industry.
    Mr. Ancram: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I share to the extent that I appreciate that there is a greater need for capital spending than there are funds available within the budget each year, for which I have to decide the spending priorities. As he knows, last year was a very hard year and decisions effectively had to be between spending on capital new starts and classroom provision. I took the view, I think rightly at that stage, that classroom provision was the priority and that it should be given the advantage over capital spending.
    970
    This year, partly because of money that has become available because of the changed security position in Northern Ireland, I have been able to restore a capital programme of £63 million. Inevitably, within that I have to make decisions because the need is greater than that sum. However, when the hon. Gentleman studies my announcements on capital starts, I hope that he will appreciate that not only did I devote a great deal of time to deciding the priorities but I tried, wherever possible, to visit the schools so that I was personally informed.
    Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister confirm two points about the capital building programme? First, are there not more than 3,000 temporary classrooms in Northern Ireland which, at the present rate of replacement, it will take almost 50 years to replace? What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "temporary"?
    Secondly, the Minister will be aware that the Prime Minister has said that nursery education is a priority for the Government. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this year's allocation of capital there appears to be no money for nursery education programmes? How can he square that with the Prime Minister's promise?
    Mr. Ancram: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new Front-Bench role. He and I used to cross swords in previous political incarnations. I am sure that we will now wish to work together for the good of education in Northern Ireland. I certainly welcome him to what I am sure he will find a fascinating portfolio.
    The question of temporary classrooms is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is very much a matter for concern when I am trying to decide priorities in evaluating the needs of each school that applies for capital—the state of the temporary classrooms is obviously one of the factors that I take into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that some temporary classrooms are in much better condition than others, which must also be taken into account.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about nursery education, he knows that the Government are considering the best way to advance the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We will wish to take full account of those decisions in relation to Northern Ireland in due course.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest unemployment rate; and what the figure was in December 1992. [19611]
    Mr. Ancram: The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in March 1995 was 11.9 per cent., which compares with 14 per cent. in December 1992.
    Mr. Marshall: I am sure that everyone will welcome that reduction of one seventh in the number of people unemployed since December 1992, which is due to this Government's policies. However, does my hon. Friend accept that that is nothing compared with the peace dividend to which the people of Northern Ireland can look forward? Will not peace lead to substantial inward investment in the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. We all welcome the consistent reduction in the unemployment figures which has taken

    971
    place in Northern Ireland. Of course they remain too high for any of us to be complacent, and we want them to be reduced. He makes an important point when he says that peace will itself bring a jobs dividend. I would go further and say that peace, underpinned by a political settlement that brought political stability, would increase inward investment even faster, and would benefit the jobs position in Northern Ireland significantly.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [19612]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Following intensive exchanges with Sinn Fein, we have told it that we believe that a sufficient basis now exists for ministerial entry into exploratory dialogue. Arrangements are being made for a meeting at which the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), will lead the Government team.
    Mr. Winnick: That is most welcome. Has not the peace process that has been in operation for the past seven months been a tremendous relief to the people of Northern Ireland, after sustained terror and destruction over 25 years? Although I fully accept what the Secretary of State has already told the House about the decommissioning of weapons, and that Sinn Fein should certainly repudiate all forms of terrorist violence, is not the last thing we want in Britain, Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic a sort of breakaway group, repudiating what Sinn Fein may or may not do and, once again, as in 1970, starting the cycle of terrorist violence?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Naturally, we want to avoid that. There is no place for violence in any democracy. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, supports what I have said and, for that matter, what the Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, has very recently said in the Dail about the impossibility of entering into substantive talks while an implication remains that the use of violence is on the cards. That is very important.
    It is essential that the Government continue to maintain their long-established and consistently held position that a proper place exists at the conference table for all parties that are democratically mandated to any substantial extent, that have made it absolutely clear that they are committed to a democratic means of approaching political purposes and that have set aside any connection with the use of violence.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the basis of order, which is the basis of stability in any society, has never existed in Northern Ireland since its foundation, that that is based on agreement on how people are governed and that its absence has created the terrible symptoms, such as 50 years of discrimination, violence and killing in every decade, and the terrible 25 years that we have just been through? Does he now agree that the past eight months have given, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the greatest hope that our people have ever had? Would the Secretary of State please advise his Back Benchers to keep their negative mouths shut, because all they are doing is undermining that great new atmosphere among the people? May I
    972
    appeal to his Government, whom I consistently praise for putting this dproblem at the top of their agenda, where it belongs—I thank him totally for that—to move swiftly now to get all parties to that table to create the basis of order and stability: agreement on how we are governed?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about agreement being the basis for stability and for order. That is so not just in Northern Ireland; it is so in every civilised and democratic society. That is the first point.
    The second is that I acknowledge that the basis of the division of the community in Northern Ireland is one that denies—that has denied in the past—a necessary element of agreement; I accept that. That is why I welcome the part that the hon. Gentleman and all the other leaders of the constitutional parties have played in recognising the need to sit down together and to fashion a new beginning in relationships that will yield greater agreement.
    I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman made those allusions to negative attitudes among Conservative Back Benchers. I would have thought that there was a very unwelcome and uncharacteristically negative contribution by his hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) a minute or two ago. We have been working for exactly what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) describes. I am glad that that has achieved what I hope and believe is the understanding that I mentioned a few moments ago.

    Investment
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment has been made of trends in investment inquiries in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire brokered by the Government. [19616]
    Mr. Ancram: There has been a significant increase in the number of inward investment inquiries received at the Industrial Development Board's headquarters in Belfast and by its eight overseas offices, especially those in London and in the United States, since the cessation of violence last autumn.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the transformation in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire has been remarkable, especially to those of us who served there in the early 1970s? Is that not an enormous tribute to the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues? But does my hon. Friend accept that peace can be built upon only if there are even further incentives to investment in Northern Ireland to reassure those who, rightly, still have strong doubts about the future?
    Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and for the way in which he has used his question. It is indeed evident that the coming of peace has had a substantial effect on inward investment in Northern Ireland. It is interesting that, in the six-month period from 1 September 1994 to 31 March this year, the IDB received 743 investment inquiries, whereas in the corresponding period for the previous year it received 189. Of course we shall always look for ways in which to attract inward investment to Northern Ireland, but I repeat what I said earlier—that the best incentive is peace underpinned by political stability.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that inward investment requires development, and that

    973
    development helps the construction industry. Is he aware of the allegations of increased interference from racketeers on certain construction sites in Northern Ireland, which in some cases is serious enough for the sites to be closed? Will he consult his colleagues with a view to giving extra powers to C1(3) to help to stamp out the grave extortion that is taking place?
    Mr. Ancram: Such allegations are matters for great concern, and if there is evidence of any such thing I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will make it available to the Government. Certainly, my colleagues with more ministerial responsibility in that area than I have will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. However, when we consider inward investment and attracting industry it is important to show the best side of Northern Ireland and not to allow the worst side to gain the upper hand.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that, although inward investment is clearly valuable, the small firms sector is also crucial? What is he doing to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurial activity in the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: Several agencies, including the Local Enterprise Development Unit, are trying to give encouragement to such businesses. Certainly, they are of great importance to Baroness Denton, who is responsible for that aspect of the Northern Ireland Office. When we talk about rather dry facts concerning inward investment, it is worth recalling that over the past two days there has been significant inward investment. First, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), Seagate announced yesterday a £60 million expansion that will bring 300 new jobs to a company that already employs many people in that area. Secondly, Dae Ryung industries announced an £18 million investment in Craigavon that will bring 500 jobs by the end of 1997. Those are two significant announcements of inward investment, and I suspect that they have much to do with the new situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Spellar: We welcome the new inward investment, especially yesterday's announcement on Seagate. I urge the Minister to consider the Government's role in providing infrastructure, as there is a worrying decline in the fortunes of the construction industry. Is he aware that recent surveys by the chartered surveyors, and by the construction employers only yesterday, demonstrate a quite substantial decline in the fortunes of the industry? Is he aware of the substantial need of schools, of housing and of roads for infrastructure and new investment in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that the peace dividend does not turn into a peace deficit for the extremely important construction industry?
    Mr. Ancram: This question would have been dealt with more successfully had the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who had tabled the previous question, on the construction industry, been present to ask it. Obviously, the matter does not fall within my ministerial responsibility, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has asked all his sections of the Department to report back to him on how the construction industry may best be assisted over the coming year and whether expenditure on construction remains the same as previously.

    Arms and Explosives
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made over the removal of arms and explosives from illegal organisations. [19618]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The security forces continue to recover illegally held weapons and munitions. The most recent example was a find on 4 April of a substantial quantity of weapons, weapon parts, ammunition and weapon-making equipment in a house in Holywood, County Down, and the subsequent recovery of a substantial quantity of arms in a house in Chester-le-Street in County Durham. The RUC will continue to seek out terrorist weaponry with the utmost vigour.
    Mr. Townsend: I warmly welcome that news. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that that topic remains right at the top of the agenda? Does he agree that any talks between various groups in Northern Ireland which fail to address that subject could be fatally flawed? Does he believe that organisations, such as the United Nations, and individual countries have a part to play in helping with the removal and destruction of illegal arms and bombs in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend. I reckon that the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the whole island of Ireland are sick to the back teeth of weapons being used for political purposes and of those who justify such use. I agree with what he said about the importance of addressing that matter in talks as well as with what he said in his concluding question.
    Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State, in reply to the previous question and to earlier questions, tried to state the circumstances and requirements for the decommissioning, as it is now called, of terrorist arsenals. May I tell him that he did so in extremely uncertain and opaque language, which people outside will find difficult to understand, that the vague and uncertain criteria stated by the Northern Ireland Office provide an opportunity for the ill-intentioned criticism of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), from which he suffered earlier, and that such language also opens the door to the sort of slippage of the Government's position that has happened so often over the past few months? The only sensible thing to do is to state the clear requirements of decommissioning and the surrender of weapons and to stick to them.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government have stuck, throughout the whole of this period, to the conditions that they have described. It has been perfectly clearly stated that to make a transition from exploratory dialogue to main political talks, in which I trust that the hon. Gentleman's party will soon be taking part, there has to be substantial progress on the decommissioning of arms. I have been asked what is meant by that. I described it in Washington as a declared willingness in principle to disarm progressively, a common practical understanding of what decommissioning would entail, the decommissioning of some arms as a tangible, confidence-building measure to test practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith and a signal of the start of a

    975
    process. The hon. Gentleman waves his arms as though he cannot understand that, but it is very easy to understand and it makes very good sense.
    Mr. Shore: In the talks on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons, should not the surrender of Semtex explosives have the highest priority since those particular weapons are clearly in use only for aggressive rather than defensive purposes?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Nobody would disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sometimes told that there is a long tradition of hiding the pike in the thatch when violence has come to an end. That cannot possibly be prayed in aid in favour of those who retain Semtex, given the appalling capacity of even a few pounds in weight of that material.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about furthering the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [19619]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) earlier today.
    Mr. Canavan: I welcome the decision, however belated, to initiate dialogue with Sinn Fein at ministerial, level, but can we have an assurance that, from now on, the talks will be as inclusive as possible and the agenda of the talks will be as comprehensive as possible, including constitutional matters as well as the decommissioning of arms? Do the Government now accept that they have no excuse whatsoever for excluding any party, or not fully including it in the talks, on the ground that it is allegedly not constitutional?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has run together two stages. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Minister of State, will be participating in the exploratory talks, and if our understandings prove to be correct, there is no relevant matter that cannot be discussed. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, whether Sinn Fein enters the substantive political talks depends on whether it divests itself of what has disqualified it from joining. I have repeated in answers to several questions today what it is necessary for it to do.
    Mr. Dykes: As these various complicated processes are gathering pace in a most encouraging way, will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the way in which parliamentarians and Ministers can together persuade the Ulster Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary body at long last?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that my hon. Friend finds the process encouraging—I think that it is—but, if it is going to continue to be, there has to be the most steadfast adherence to principle and we have to play matters coolly and resolutely, as well as in a sensible and imaginative way. As to what the Ulster Unionists do in regard to the body that my hon. Friend mentioned, that is a matter entirely for that party, led by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
    Dr. Hendron: When the Secretary of State is considering ways of furthering the peace process, will he
    976
    at the same time consider prisoners, both republican and loyalist, bearing it in mind that many of the young men from both communities who are in prison were not responsible for the extremely adverse environments in which they spent their formative years? Will he please look sympathetically, therefore, at the whole question of prisoners? At the same time, does he accept that the time must surely have come when Irish prisoners in England should be brought to Northern Ireland, so that their friends and loved ones can visit them there?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman invites me to look sympathetically at the question of prisoners, but he will know that such sympathy cannot exclude, for example, sympathy with the feelings of the relatives of those who have been murdered. There are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland. Those in prison are there only by reason of having been convicted of offences such as murder, conspiracy, the possession of arms and so forth. Accordingly, those who have been sentenced by the courts will have to serve their sentences in accordance with the law. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency has suffered much from these hideous crimes, should not give weight to the idea that those were somehow political crimes—they were not, they were murders and crimes of great evil and malice, done to people whom he represents, along with others.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Irish National Liberation Army has declared a ceasefire? If so, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to have talks with it?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no knowledge of any ceasefire having been declared by INLA.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further incentives he intends to provide to encourage inward investment in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. [19620]
    Mr. Ancram: A competitive package of incentives is already available, which has resulted in a number of major inward projects in recent years. There are no plans to introduce changes at present, but the competitiveness of the package is kept continuously under review.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that one of the great disincentives to investment is the high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland, which is due in part to the high rate of VAT on heavy fuel oil, which affects Northern Ireland unduly? Will he take up that matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall certainly pass on that comment to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. As I have said before, when we consider inward investment to Northern Ireland, it is important that we not only look at some of the difficulties, but that we continue to point out that Northern Ireland is now an excellent place in which to invest. In that way, we can attract overseas investment, which will bring jobs to the constituencies of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, including that of the hon. Gentleman.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19637]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the council tax levels set by the district councils in my area for middle-range band D houses? Labour York is charging £101, a 21 per cent. increase; Liberal Democrat Ryedale is charging £78, a massive 57 per cent. increase; while in neighbouring Conservative Hambleton, householders are getting a £32 refund. Does that not show that Labour remains the high-tax party, that a protest vote for the Liberal Democrats can prove very expensive and that people are better off under the Tories?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Examples similar to those that he has given can be found right around the country. The Labour party has sought repeatedly during the local election campaign to mislead people with comparisons on council tax, but it knows, as everyone else should know, that, band for band, like for like, Conservative councils are infinitely cheaper than Labour councils and substantially cheaper than Liberal Democrat councils.
    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister sympathise in any way with the anger of nurses, who will be paid differently for the same job, according not to their performance, but to the money in the hospital trust?
    The Prime Minister: We have done for nurses precisely what they asked of us. We have provided them with their own review body and met in full its recommendations. That is something that no previous Government were prepared to give nurses. We have given them that. A great many nurses have now accepted the national settlement, to which, of course, must be added the local settlements.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is surely aware that the review body set a national figure and that it included the local component because of Government pressure to do so. He therefore cannot shuffle off responsibility on to it. Is not the effect of Government policy on the health service now to pit nurse against nurse, hospital against hospital, doctor against doctor? The result will be to divide and rule and the commercialisation, demoralisation and break-up of the health service, when people want to see the national health service run as a proper national service for the people.
    The Prime Minister: No Government at any stage have funded the health service as generously in terms of pay or other aspects of it as we do. Set against what the right hon. Gentleman has just had to say, can he perhaps explain whether it is fair or unfair that nurses' pay has risen by an average 78 per cent. in the past six years, which is twice as fast as the economy as a whole? Does he also recall that, under the Labour Government, nurses' pay actually fell—it did not even maintain its value; it
    978
    fell? Since then, it has increased by 78 per cent., and nurses have, as they have always sought, an independent pay review body that is, I remind the right hon. Gentleman, independent.
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19638]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are indulging in political knockabout on the subject of tower blocks are ducking the real issue, which is how we can help the people who live in tower blocks? Will my right hon. Friend urge all local councils to co-operate with the Government in getting rid of tower blocks?
    The Prime Minister: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday, I tackled serious issues that affect the lives of many people in inner cities. As a smokescreen at that time, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) issued a press release purporting to represent my record at Lambeth council. Even a cursory checking would have shown the hon. Gentleman that every aspect of that press release was a falsehood.
    It is, of course, more than a quarter of a century ago, so I have had the facts checked. The buildings for which I am supposed to have been responsible were designed and approved by the Labour council, before I was elected to the council, let alone became housing chairman. The Leader of the Opposition may well shift uneasily in his seat. He speaks of higher standards in politics and he allows the Labour party to indulge in falsehoods, day after day.
    Mr. Ashdown: Would not the Prime Minister's great predecessor, Winston Churchill, turn in his grave if he knew how much of the public's money was now being spent to purchase his state papers, while investment in the nation's real assets—our children and their education—is being cut to ribbons by the present Government?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, has his facts entirely wrong about the state papers. What were purchased were the personal papers of Sir Winston, which could have been freely sold to any number of buyers, and which Sir Winston had decreed, through his trustees, should go to his subsequent descendants. It is those papers that have been purchased.
    The archive, as a whole, includes state papers and personal papers, many of which have no connection whatsoever with Sir Winston's time in government. The personal papers could have been freely sold to any number of buyers. It was to maintain the archive intact that the national heritage memorial fund, which is independent, decided to fund the purchase of the personal papers from the Churchill family trustees. The Government decided at the same time to transfer the state papers, similarly, to Churchill college.
    There is no question whatever of lottery money having been used to purchase papers that are the property of the state, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his remarks.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the rather nasty and vindictive policy being pursued by the Lib-Lab pact on Essex county council,

    979
    which is withdrawing support for the transport of children to grammar schools? Does he agree that, while the Opposition parties try to speak the language of choice and diversity, they continue to have the language of envy and vindictiveness engraved on their hearts?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say in view of the repeated comments about education from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his hon. Friends. It seems that they are concerned about discrimination only when it does not involve some pupils in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, whose parents happen to have chosen for them to go to grammar schools.
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19639]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister has clearly had time to reflect on the statement that he made yesterday about inner cities and their housing conditions, but does he remember that in 1979, £7 billion was spent on housing investment and this year the figure has been cut to £2.5 billion? Is that not another example of the Government saying one thing, but doing another?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the records through the years, he will find that the changes made in inner cities—all of them beneficial—have been opposed by him and his colleagues throughout the past 16 years. The 12 urban development corporations, which are now credited with turning round the worst inner city centres, were opposed by the Labour party. Estate action and housing action trusts were opposed by the Labour party. The single regeneration budget, which is helping to fund the scheme that I saw yesterday in Hackney, was opposed by the Labour party. The deputy leader of the Labour party, who has a loose connection with facts most of the time, seems to believe that his party was responsible for the private finance initiative. May I remind him that the Labour party has opposed us time after time over moves to bring private capital to the inner cities. I know that the Labour party is stealing many of our policies, but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should have some shame and not try to steal all of them.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the continuing Northern Ireland peace process and the encouraging signs therein. When does he expect the talks with Sinn Fein to start and how long are they likely to last? I know that that is a difficult question. Is my right hon. Friend optimistic about the outcome?
    The Prime Minister: The exploratory talks with Sinn Fein will start before very long. Those exploratory talks must be concluded, with a number of matters settled, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set out on a number of occasions, before we can enter into the political talks process itself. I very much hope that the exploratory talks can begin very speedily.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19640]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Since so many charities have lost income because of the national lottery and since Lady Churchill so freely gave to the national archives so many of Sir Winston's works, does the Prime Minister not think that it would be patriotic to follow her example today?
    The Prime Minister: Charities will find that they will be substantial beneficiaries of the national lottery—that will continue to happen year after year. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the substantial help that will go, not only to charities, but to a number of other worthy causes, as a result of the Government's initiative.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19641]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Is the Prime Minister aware that 250 jobs are about to be created by the reopening of a colliery in Nottinghamshire and that the Asfordby pit in my constituency is about to go into full production? Will my right hon. Friend call on the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to give credit where credit is due? The right hon. Gentleman should recognise the success not only of a privatised coal industry, but of the gas industry. After the passage of the Government's Gas Bill, will not the benefits of competition and choice be extended to every domestic consumer of gas in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I imagine that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) heard what my hon. Friend had to say. Despite the ridiculous predictions from the Labour party time after time, competition has reduced prices in the gas, electricity and telephone industries. I see no reason to suppose that it will not deliver a successful coal industry. In the case of gas competition, domestic customers should see their bills fall by about 10 per cent. thanks to the measures taken—something I should hope that everyone would welcome.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April. [19642]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister read the recent speech by Mr. Michael Grade about the rise of Rupert Murdoch? Does he think that it is right that a foreign-owned corporation headed by a ruthless megalomaniac should control one third of our newspapers and much of our television? Does the Prime Minister plan to do anything about it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been studying the law relating to cross-media ownership. That study is not concluded and, as soon as it is, we shall publish what we propose to do.

    981
    As to Channel 5—which is clearly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—the process of choosing a Channel 5 licensee must be, and is being, conducted on the basis of long-standing rules legislated by the House.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Lord Chancellor to think again about paying legal aid in civil cases to people who are not ordinarily resident in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that our constituents
    982
    object to that practice, not on the basis of the applicant's nationality, but because there is not enough money in' the legal aid fund to pay legal aid to our middle-income constituents who have paid taxes all their lives?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a matter that a number of people are concerned about. I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will examine it.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 MAY—Remaining stages of the Children (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 2 MAY—Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 MAY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on exports, industry and inward investment, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 4 MAY—Debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 5 MAY—It will be proposed that the House will meet at 9.30 am for Prayers and thereafter adjourn. Addresses will be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in Westminster Hall at 12 noon.
Monday 8 May is, of course, a bank holiday, and the House will not sit. I regret that, at present, I am not able' to give details of business later that week. I will do so next week and, at the same time, I hope to give some indication as to business for the following week. I will make every effort—if I may predict one of the questions that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will ask—to include provision for Opposition time.
Mrs. Taylor: I regret the slippage in announcing future business that the Leader of the House has announced. We were making good progress, and I urge him to try to regain that position in the future.
I could raise many issues with the Leader of the House today, but I intend to put them to one side in light of the seriousness with which we view his failure to provide a Supply day for the Opposition next week. I have been pressing for a Supply day since the end of March, so that Opposition Members could choose the subject of debate. Today, the Leader of the House has announced the business of the House up to and beyond the local elections on 4 May, and we have been denied a Supply day yet again. That will mean an interval of at least six weeks between Supply days.
I believe that the Leader of the House is aware of his obligations to Her Majesty's Opposition, and I know that he must have come under very significant pressure—not least, because he promised in the Chamber on 30 March and on 18 and 20 April that he would do his best to take on board our requests for a Supply day.
I cannot stress enough that it is unacceptable for the Government to refuse the Opposition a Supply day throughout the run-up period to the local elections, especially given the desire on both sides of the House for a debate on health. Even with the Whip restored to some to compensate for other hon. Members who have been suspended, are the Government still afraid of the outcome of a debate on London health? The Leader of the House
984
must realise that he is wrong to try to gag the Opposition, wrong to delay debates until after the local elections, and wrong to duck debates on London health.
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that there is no question of trying to gag the Opposition or duck debate on legitimate issues. There was an above-average frequency of Opposition days earlier in the year, and we have had an above-average need to deal with Government business in the past few weeks, including three Bills for which the Opposition pressed very hard, among them the Children (Scotland) Bill, which we are due to debate next Monday. I always take account of the hon. Lady's representations, which is not to say that I can always meet them, but I have just said that I shall make every effort to include Opposition time in my next business statement.
Sir John Gorst: Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on the closure of London hospitals?
Mr. Newton: There have already been substantial exchanges on that matter in relation to the private notice question which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health answered two or three weeks ago. I have no plans to provide for a debate in Government time, but I shall note my hon. Friend's representation.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House accept that the widespread consternation and confusion about the exact position in relation to the Churchill archives has not been dispelled by the answer given by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) a few minutes ago?
It is not the distinction between the state and private papers that concerns people in all parts of the House and the country, but the clear impression that Ministers have given the House on successive occasions that the national lottery would be new money, not money to substitute for something in which the Government and the state should invest anyway. Will the Leader of the House therefore assure us that there will be an opportunity not only to hear from the Secretary of State on that matter, but to debate the issue?
Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot promise an opportunity for debate but, as ever, I shall bear the request in mind. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely clear about the position, and, as he emphasised, the decision was taken by independent trustees of the national heritage memorial fund.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I quote a phrase which my right hon. Friend just used and suggest that there is an "above-average need" for a debate on the situation in the former Yugoslavia? Can we have one very soon?
Mr. Newton: While noting my hon. Friend's request, and very much respecting the interest that he has taken in those matters over many years, I cannot promise a debate at the moment. Given the pressures I face from those on the Opposition Front Bench and elsewhere, he will understand some of the difficulties that I might find in so doing. I will, however, keep it in mind.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement next week on the delays and

985
prevarications with regard to the district auditor's reports on an investigation into possible fraud in the housing renovation department in Rhondda? A management letter was submitted last year on the matter and has not been actioned. A public interest report should be brought forward. One was promised before March, but will not be brought forward before the local elections. Do not the electorate have a right to know about important material in such reports before local elections take place?
Mr. Newton: I am not aware of any plans that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has to make a statement on that matter, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to his attention.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on commitment in politics, given that the House may wish to decide which is the greater cosmetic act: the setting up of Max Factor, or Labour's review of clause IV?
Mr. Newton: I will reflect on that.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the public, who are outraged by the Churchill payout, will not be pacified by the Prime Minister's answer this afternoon? As the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) will almost certainly be made redundant at the next general election, will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on what will be seen as the biggest redundancy payout ever?
Mr. Newton: As I have said, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear in his answer at Prime Minister's questions today. What is more, I think that it will be generally welcomed that it has proved possible to keep this invaluable collection of papers, regardless of their original ownership and whether they were state papers or private papers, or those on which the National Heritage Memorial Fund will have taken legal advice, together as a single, invaluable collection.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is keen to have a debate on the health service. Will my right hon. Friend assist her by allowing an Opposition day debate on the health service in Leicestershire, because my right hon. Friend will find that 93 per cent. of those who responded to a survey across my constituency were not only well satisfied but wholly happy with the way in which the health service is running under the Government's reforms? Can my right hon. Friend find Opposition time for such a debate?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly endeavour to bring that out should such a debate take place. In any event, I endorse my hon. and learned Friend's observations about the experience that people report when they actually have treatment with the NHS.
Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the lottery? Is he aware that people in poor areas in Hackney spend more money, as a proportion of their income, on lottery tickets than people anywhere else? They are amazed to find that £13.5 million of their money is going to the Churchill family trust.
986
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's answer this afternoon was misleading, and that what the Prime Minister described as personal papers are personal only in the sense that Sir Winston Churchill chose to take them with him when he retired from office? Is he aware that the Attlee family donated all his papers, state and personal, to the nation, and will he not urge the Churchill family to do the same?
Mr. Newton: I do not believe that the hon. Lady is right in what she says.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on school transport? I am sure that his constituents must have been very concerned at the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) about the vindictive action of the Lib-Lab pact that controls Essex county council and the damage that it will do to less well-off families whose children need to go some distance to get to school. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend that in Kent, where the county council is also run by a Lib-Lab pact, we are also very concerned.
Mr. Newton: The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is immediately adjacent to mine—indeed, it is half a mile from where I live—so I am well aware of the concerns that are felt in Essex about the policies that are being considered by the Lib-Lab pact that runs Essex county council. Indeed, I am making representations on behalf of my own constituents.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the pay of the bosses who run the privatised utilities, and has he noticed that his friend Lord Young, who is the head of the privatised Cable and Wireless company and receives £948,000 a year, has had the bare-faced cheek to attack teachers who are asking for 3 per cent. as being "greedy"? Is it not time that we debated this issue to put into context the fact that, among those who have taken those jobs, are 19 ex-Tory Cabinet Ministers, with 19 directorships between them? They are the greedy people, and the last thing they should be talking about is our teachers and nurses.
Mr. Newton: The position is that we are awaiting the recommendations of the Greenbury committee, which is considering the issue of executive pay in all public companies. I think that that is the right context in which to consider those matters, and any report from that committee would be the right context in which to consider a debate.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can I reiterate to my right hon. Friend my previous plea for an urgent debate on civil air transport, which is one of this country's largest sources of employment and foreign exchange? In that context, could my right hon. Friend reconsider the subject matter for next Thursday's debate, and move the debate on the Royal Air Force to a later date, because the Royal Air Force affects the whole of the nation and many right hon. and hon. Members will be away for the local elections, whereas civil air transport is of particular concern to London Members, especially to those like me, who have many constituents working at Heathrow airport?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I shall, as ever, bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. I must say, however, that I am

987
mildly surprised by his request in one sense, in that he is one of those from whom I had anticipated pressure for a debate on the RAF had I not announced one.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Given that the Director General of the Prison Service is now on probation, mainly because the Home Secretary cannot make up his mind whether to sack him or back him, is it not time that we had a debate on prison privatisation?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the House about this matter yesterday. There are no plans for a debate such as the hon. Lady suggests, but I shall, of course, bear her request in mind, too.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on civil air transport and air services agreements between the United Kingdom and the United States, so that Conservative Members can make the point that it is the job of the United Kingdom to negotiate such agreements, not that of the European Commission, and that we are going to defeat the ambitions of the Commissioner involved, as we have in the past?
Mr. Newton: I have to acknowledge that that is a genuinely attractive proposition for a debate, but I must stop short of promising it. I can but stress that I share my hon. Friend's view that the United Kingdom's interests are best served by direct air services agreements made by national Governments. We firmly believe that the United Kingdom and other member states should remain free to negotiate bilaterally with the United States.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate early next week on funding and financial provision for the Royal British Legion, especially as that would be just ahead of VE day, which we shall all celebrate, so that we can consider what might have been done with the £14 million that has just been given to the trust of one hon. Member, and how it might have been used to help the veterans who really deserve it?
Mr. Newton: I understand why the hon. Lady feels it right to ask the question in that way. I would venture the view, however, that members of the Royal British Legion and, indeed, all those who served in the British forces and on the British civilian scene in the second world war, would be very unhappy at the thought of the Churchill papers being broken up.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On that subject, does my right hon. Friend accept that everybody knows that, if it had not been for the inspirational leadership of Sir Winston Churchill in the second world war, it is highly likely that we would have been defeated and that this country would have been governed by Adolf Hitler? Does he not consider that this country owes an unbounded debt to Churchill and his memory, and that his wishes should be honoured and respected?
Madam Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman ask for any change of business next week. This is not the time to make statements about individual views, but an opportunity for hon. Members to question the Leader of the House about next week's business.
988
However, I shall hear the Leader of the House reply—he is quite capable of doing so in spite of the way the paint was put to him.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for that compliment from the Chair, and I shall do my best. Perhaps the best that I can do is to point out that part of what is in effect our business next Friday is the start of the celebrations for VE day weekend, with the events in Westminster Hall. I am sure that the contribution that Sir Winston Churchill made to enable us to hold such events will be much in everyone's mind.
Mr. Derek Enright: Has the Leader of the House read the Conservative manifesto of one John Kelly, a local election candidate in Manchester, who writes:
"Are you depressed, unhappy, suicidal?—then think what it's like for me as a Conservative candidate"?
Could we have a debate a week on Friday to discuss the medical advice available for defeated Tory candidates?
Mr. Newton: I have not read that manifesto. On the second point, I do not share the reported feelings of the person in question. In answer to his last question, the hon. Gentleman will find that the Friday in question is a non-sitting day.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate on the decision to acquire the Churchill papers? I support all who called for such a debate with a view to congratulating those who made the great decision to acquire the papers of the greatest man in the century, perhaps the greatest Englishman of all time. [Interruption.] It is true. May we have such a debate without descending to the politics of envy?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I have a request that I shall bear in mind, but I am afraid that I cannot accede to it from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives.
Ms Mildred Gordon: May I inform the Leader of the House that a number of my constituents have complained that there is still a police cordon around the City of London? I note that the letter boxes around Paddington station are still sealed. Will he arrange for a debate about security provisions on the mainland, in view of the changed circumstances?
Mr. Newton: I shall, of course, bring those remarks to the attention of the appropriate authorities, and ask them to be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the City. My own observations, as a result of being a frequent user of Liverpool street station, are that the arrangements have improved traffic flow in the area.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for an urgent debate on local government? Is he aware of a recent study that showed that most politically obsessed local authorities are all Labour-controlled? Indeed, their obsession with race, gender and sexual orientation is said to heighten awareness, not discrimination, and is causing serious resentment in the community at large, as people feel that they are not getting a fair share of the cake.
Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the costs of what is known as political correctness are probably one reason why, band for band, the costs of Labour local councils are higher than those of others.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's inadequate explanation, may we have a statement next week explaining exactly who are the beneficiaries of the £13 million from the lottery fund that was used to buy the Churchill papers? If those papers are part of our national heritage, why on earth did the Government not intervene to stop them being sold off on the international market, instead of using £13 million from the lottery fund as a ransom payment to people who are quite intent on threatening to sell off our national heritage to the highest bidder?
Mr. Newton: I repeat that I am clear from our exchanges that my hon. Friends do not regard my right hon. Friend's answer as inadequate. As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, the decision was taken by the independent national heritage memorial fund.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the possible introduction of a national funding formula for education? Is he aware that Derbyshire county council holds back £720 per pupil, Staffordshire holds back £550 per pupil and Nottinghamshire holds back £570 per pupil? If that money went directly into the schools, it would make quite a difference to the financial position of our schools in all those counties.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will examine carefully my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope also that the local authorities to which he has referred will do as he suggests.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House was present last week when we debated the abuse of proceedings in the Select Committee on Members' Interests. What is the Government's response? Will there be a statement on what we are to do in circumstances where a libel action in a court is given precedence over the requirements for a Committee of the House of Commons to carry out a full inquiry? Surely the Government must have a position on the matter, particularly as they have a Whip on the Committee.
Mr. Newton: You would quickly rule me out of order, Madam Speaker, were I to comment in any detail on the affairs of a Select Committee—in this case, the Select Committee on Members' Interests. My concern last week was to enable that Committee to continue its work without interruption from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. James Clappison: When my right hon. Friend considers the Opposition request for a debate on London's health services, will he bear in mind the fact that the Opposition had two Opposition days in the recent past on that subject? On one occasion, the Opposition's health spokesman was replaced by their campaigns co-ordinator. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that any debate on London's health services is calm and constructive—not the sort of vote-grubbing exercise that the Opposition want?
Mr. Newton: I always do my best to ensure that all the proceedings in the House are calm and constructive.
Mr. Harry Cohen: With the planned closure of the much-loved Bart's hospital and of other hospitals in London, and given health cuts and the discriminatory low pay award to nurses, is there not an overwhelming case for debating London's health services? Does the Leader of the House share the concern felt by me and others that, with the recent three-in-a-bed scandal involving a Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Health might think that a good idea for London hospitals?
Mr. Newton: In circumstances in which an extra £1.3 billion is being spent on the NHS this year, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks do justice to the true situation. In referring to cuts, the hon. Gentleman did not state the correct position.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the extremely high levels of pay of top executives in local government—especially in the light of the fact that the county director of Derbyshire, who earns £70,000 a year, has ignored three requests from me to say by how much his salary and those of his senior executives have risen over the past five years? Should there not be a debate, so that those figures can be brought out into the open?
Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the Greenbury committee. If there is a subsequent debate, my hon. Friend might be able to raise those evidently related matters.
Mr. Michael Connarty: As to the VE day celebrations, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Scottish Office Minister to come to the House to explain how that Department is dealing with the concerns expressed in early-day motion 871?
[That this House is deeply concerned that the intention of the Royal Proclamation of 22nd June 1994, that 8th May 1995 should be a Bank Holiday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of V.E. Day, is being undermined in Scotland; notes that unlike other parts of the United Kingdom 1st May is an annual Bank Holiday fixed by statute for Scotland; notes that in a letter of 22nd February 1995, replying to a question to the Prime Minister by the honourable Member for Falkirk East, the Department of the Environment stated 'In Scotland the anniversary will be marked by an additional day's Bank Holiday for this year only'; notes, however, that it appears that correspondence between the then Minister for Industry and Local Government in the Scottish Office, the honourable Member for Eastwood, and CBI Scotland encouraged employers to treat 8th May 1995 as a replacement for the 1st May public holiday; notes that this has led some employers such as the Post Office to withdraw the traditional May Day holiday on 1st May and substitute 8th May, in effect forcing employees to pay for their own V.E. Day holiday; and urges public and private companies to negotiate an additional holiday on 8th May so that Scots can celebrate the anniversary of the peace won by the sacrifices of so many. [R] Relevant registered interest declared.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Monday 1 May is a statutory bank holiday in Scotland, and that most public workers will get an extra day's holiday on 8 May?

991
However, because of interference by a Scottish Office Minister, the Post Office is denying that holiday to its workers, and the Scottish Office is denying it to its workers.
Will the Department of Trade and Industry explain, even at this late date, why it will not compel the Post Office to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to avoid a strike on Monday to preserve a national holiday in Scotland, which would bring the good name of the VE day celebrations into disrepute?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's questions to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Leader of the House is aware, it would be possible to include the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on tomorrow's Order Paper, but only if that Bill finishes in Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 113 amendments have been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is the Minister concerned? The filibuster involved is worse than that seen on the Floor of the House last year in respect of the previous Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Will the Leader of the House take action to ensure that the current Bill is allowed to progress this afternoon, so that it can be debated in the House tomorrow—as required by many hon. Members and the public?
Mr. Newton: It is not for me to comment on proceedings in a Committee at which I have not been present, and it would be improper for me to seek to control them. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that a wide range of issues require thorough discussion. He can hardly accuse the Government of being unhelpful in a week in which we tabled a money resolution for his Bill.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I was surprised to hear one Conservative Back-Bench Member remark that 93 per cent. of the population are satisfied with the health service. The fact is that 93 per cent. of the population are dissatisfied with the state of the health service. May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider, and to approve a Supply day debate on the state of the NHS?
Mr. Newton: All I will say is that I will add that request to the list of comparable requests, starting with that of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I raise with the Leader of the House the problem of community care, and in particular Orchard house, a nursing home in my constituency? It was recently the subject of a "Frontline Scotland" investigative programme, which exposed malpractice, mistreatment and criminal neglect of residents in that home. Because of the seriousness of the allegations, I ask the Leader of the House for a debate next week on that very important subject, because there are a considerable number of residents in nursing homes such as Orchard house, who need to be protected. I think that the House should have a debate on that.
Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be quite wrong for me to seek to comment on allegations of the kind that he has just made
992
or reported, and I shall not attempt to do so. The proper course would be for such allegations to be investigated by the appropriate authorities—the social work department, as it would be in Scotland, or the Secretary of State; I am not sure which. I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Andrew Miller: As the Leader of the House is nervous about bringing the Secretary of State for Health before the House on a Supply day on London health before the local elections, will he at least ask her to come before the House next week to answer a specific question on an analysis that has been done on Government figures, which show that 74 out of the top 100 prescribed drugs cost less than the £5.25 cost of a prescription, and, what is more, one third of those drugs cost less than £1? That is taxation of the sick. It is about time that the Government answered that important question.
Mr. Newton: It is only slightly less than a fortnight ago that the issue of prescription charges was debated on the Floor of the House with the Minister of State. I certainly do not envisage further time for debates in the near future.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on education administration in central and local government? Is he aware that such a debate would enable clarification of remarks made to the House by the Prime Minister? Does he recall that, on 16 March, the Prime Minister told the House that there were two education administrators for every three teachers? Yet, in Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that those figures came from "Social Trends".
On checking with the Library of the House of Commons, I am assured that no such figures exist in "Social Trends". The reality is that, in the Prime Minister's own constituency, in Cambridgeshire, there is in fact one administrator for 16 teachers. Does the Leader of the House not think that it would be appropriate to have such a debate, so that we could raise those issues?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be appropriate to have such a debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the question of the property of former Ministers and Prime 'Ministers: what belongs to them, what is personal to them and what is claimed to be their property merely because they held high office?
The revulsion throughout the country at the money that is to be paid to the Churchill family for the papers must be aired in the House. Above all, we need to know that other former Prime Ministers or their families will not make a killing out of selling their papers, which they gained solely by being in office, as a result of being elected and therefore being public servants.
Mr. Newton: I will observe in passing that it seems to me to be quite difficult to argue that letters written by a schoolboy to his mother in his early years can be counted as state papers. Clearly, there have been difficulties in determining precisely what is and what is not, but, as I understand it, the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund took careful legal advice on the question of ownership and valuation before making their decision.

China and Hong Kong
[Relevant documents: the First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1993–94, on relations between the United Kingdom and China in the period up to and beyond 1997 (HC 37), the Government Observations thereon (Cm. 2608) and the Annual Report on Hong Kong 1994 by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Cm. 2788.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We welcome this opportunity to review developments in China and Hong Kong and to look at our policies towards them. This is no backwater; it is a central part of our foreign policy and, indeed, the last main chapter of our imperial history. I am sure that it is right that the House should, from time to time, discuss the matter.
The debate is timely. Last year, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), produced its thorough report on relations between the United Kingdom and China. The Government have made their observations on that report.
Last month, I laid before the House the annual report on Hong Kong. As it happens, last week in New York I had another of my regular series of meetings with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Vice-Premier Qian Qichen. I hope that he will be visiting London later this year. Next month, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will visit Peking and Shanghai, accompanied by more than 100 of our most senior business men.
With fewer than 800 days to go before sovereignty over Hong Kong reverts to China, it is a good time to take stock. The Foreign Affairs Committee was right to begin its report with an analysis of China's growing weight in world affairs. We all know that China's economic growth is formidable. Average growth of over 9 per cent. a year has now continued for more than 16 years. The economic reforms, including the introduction of market principles and the opening of the economy to foreign trade and investment, are, I believe, irreversible.
I am aware that there is speculation about revolutionary change and the break-up of China—on analogy with the former Soviet Union. Sometimes, the growth in regional power and the obvious decentralisation in China are cited as evidence that China is heading down that road. I do not believe that. I believe that China will remain united and, over the years, continue to grow rapidly in economic strength and in influence in the world.
China is not the Soviet Union. As I know from my past time there, in China there exist powerful forces to preserve the unity of the country—a strong cultural and racial identity and strong national institutions committed to keeping China intact and pride in China as a nation.
It is true that economic reforms have given the provinces more economic decision-making powers, which many have been quick to exercise. But there has been no evidence of a concerted attempt by regions to follow their own political agenda. I believe that China's unity and integrity will continue for as far ahead as we can see and certainly long after the transition to the new generation of political leadership.
994
Against that background, we are seeking to develop a practical and realistic dialogue with China. We work with China as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. We encourage China to be forthcoming on such issues as non-proliferation—now being debated in New York—and regional conflicts. We want China to join international bodies such as the new World Trade Organisation, although obviously that must be on the right terms. We are building up contacts of all sorts with China through the British Council, the Great Britain-China Centre, the BBC and many other channels.
At the heart of what we do with China is, of course, our special responsibility for the future of Hong Kong. As the House would wish, that responsibility is among our highest foreign policy objectives. We have the joint declaration and we must do what we believe to be in the best interests of Hong Kong on the basis of that declaration. We must not shrink from that. We owe the people of Hong Kong no less; I believe that we owe ourselves no less. That is not at odds with our wider objectives in relation to China. Some people speak as if we had a choice between China policy and Hong Kong policy. In fact, we cannot have one without the other. Only within the context of a wide-ranging relationship with China can we fulfil our responsibility for Hong Kong.
When Vice-Premier Qian and I met in September last year, he spoke of a gradual restoration in Sino-British relations, over Hong Kong and more generally. As part of that, we want to increase the frequency and scope of visits in both directions. The visit that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), paid to Peking last July was one element in that. We welcomed to London the Chinese Vice-Minister of Finance. This year, two former British Prime Ministers, Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), paid successful visits to Peking and they saw, as was right, a number of China's senior leaders. As I said, the next step is next month's visit to Peking by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I mentioned to Foreign Minister Qian that we could develop more contacts between hon. Members and legislators in China.
Perhaps the clearest example of the depth of the relationship is on the commercial side. China's open-door policy has undoubtedly freed the entrepreneurial spirit and talent of Chinese people with spectacular results, as all recent visitors testify. Gross domestic product has trebled in the past decade and a half. British industry and commerce are heavily and successfully involved. Last year, we mounted our largest ever trade mission to China, with more than 100 representatives from more than 70 companies.
Last year, our exports to China were worth £845 million, up more than 14 per cent. on 1993, the figure for which was 72 per cent. up on the previous year. Britain is now the largest European Union investor in China. By the end of last year, our cumulative investment there amounted to $4.5 billion. More than 600 joint ventures in which British firms hold a stake exist in China. Those firms include some of the leading names in British industry.
To help our exporters, we have made use of the aid and trade provision, worth some £25 million a year, and in September last year we signed the third concessional financing agreement, worth £55 million. Therefore, our

995
business men are doing well, but not yet well enough. We need to press for every advantage and opportunity for British industry in a market that, early in the next century, will be among the world's largest.
We have well-established and expanding cultural links with China. Many such contacts exist. I should like just to mention that about 5,000 Chinese students attend British universities and colleges—a striking figure. The British Council is active in promoting scholarships to Britain, English language teaching and a full exchange programme in science, medicine and technology.
Of course, there is not just progress and co-operation. Inevitably, there are disagreements, and the relationship must have the strength to allow those disagreements to be expressed. We need, for example, to talk candidly but calmly to the Chinese about human rights, and we do so. We continue to be deeply concerned at some of the reports that reach us. We raise those concerns regularly. I did so with Vice-Premier Qian in New York the other day, and the mission to China in 1992, led by my noble Friend Lord Howe, produced a number of particular practical recommendations for legal reform. We are continually in touch with the Chinese authorities about the taking up of those suggestions.
Right hon. and hon. Members are rightly much concerned about the threat to Tibetan culture and, identity—a particular example of human rights abuse. That can be sorted out and put right only by a thorough dialogue without preconditions between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans. We urge all concerned to start that process without delay.
I should say a word about Taiwan, which comes under this heading, because we have substantial commercial and cultural interests there. We do not recognise it as an independent state and that means that we have no political dialogue with it, but our unofficial links are there and making good progress.
Last year, our exports to Taiwan were worth £735 million, up 10 per cent. on 1993. Nine out of 10 Taiwanese manufacturing investments in Europe have come to the United Kingdom. We have 8,000 Taiwanese students at British universities and colleges.
We have a "One China" policy—which I am sure is right—so we have no political relationship with Taiwan, but we can develop our ties in other sectors. This year's first British festival in Taiwan, including a British education exhibition, is powerful evidence of that.
Mr. David Howell: What my right hon. Friend says about Taiwan is welcome. As he says, we recognise the "One China" policy, but although 5,000 mainland students are here, we have even more Taiwanese students. Does he accept that in developing commercial relations with Taiwan, we should impose on the movements of people from Taiwan and on the visa procedures no more onerous a regime than any other country does?
Mr. Hurd: I shall look into the detail of that question, but we certainly have no desire to put any artificial or unnecessary restraints on people coming and going on their legitimate business between here and Taiwan.
I shall now say something about Hong Kong—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I take the Foreign Secretary back to his reference to student movements to the United Kingdom from China? Is there not an argument that the British Government should take a far more hands-on approach to developing courses in United Kingdom universities in the Chinese languages, and also to promoting Chinese culture? Should we not at the same time promote an extensive programme of moving students from the United Kingdom to study in Chinese institutions? Is not this a critical point in our history, when we can formulate future events and the future relations between the two countries by developing that important area of student movement?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, that is important. Each time that I have been to China, I have met British students studying there, as the hon: Gentleman suggests that they should. But I have also met many Chinese who have come back from studying in this country and are now taking up positions in different professions in the People's Republic, and I have been most encouraged by the way in which they look back on their time in colleges and universities here.
If I could come to Hong Kong, there are now just over two years to go before sovereignty over Hong Kong reverts from London to Peking. We have come a long way, and achieved a great deal, since the Sino-British joint declaration was signed in December 1984 and ratified by the House the following May.
On the political front, we have put in place, I believe successfully, arrangements for developing representative government in Hong Kong that are wholly compatible both with the joint declaration and with China's Basic Law for Hong Kong. It is a pity that, as the House knows, after 17 rounds of talks lasting most of 1993, it was not in the end possible to reach agreement with China on those arrangements.
Since then, elections have been held under the new arrangements for both tiers of local government in Hong Kong; for the district boards in September 1994, and last month for the municipal councils. Both elections saw a record number of candidates and a record turnout by the electorate. Pro-democracy parties finished with clear leads, but those regarded as having close links with Peking or with the business community also performed very respectably.
The final round of elections under British rule—those for the Legislative Council—will be held on 17 September this year. I am encouraged by the interest that all sections of the Hong Kong community are showing in contesting the elections, and I see no good reason why China should dismantle electoral arrangements that are wholly consistent with the joint declaration, the Basic Law and other understandings between us, and that so clearly command the confidence of most people in Hong Kong.
But that is not enough; that is not the whole story. The Hong Kong Government have had much more to do than simply to put those arrangements in place. As everybody now present in the Chamber knows, Hong Kong is an intensely dynamic and stimulating place—I think that it is the most stimulating place that I ever visit. It does not stand still, and its Government cannot stand still.
Over the past year, the Hong Kong Government have strengthened the protection of human rights there. In June they announced measures to promote sexual equality, and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child

997
was extended to Hong Kong last year. The Hong Kong Government have also announced an administrative code on access to Government information, and next week they will introduce into LegCo a Bill to prohibit discrimination on grounds of disability. They have announced plans for legislation to protect privacy in respect of personal data, and to make legal aid more readily available in Bill of Rights cases.
That big social and political legislative programme is against a background of extraordinary economic growth in Hong Kong-6.4 per cent per annum over the past decade. I am not sure that, when people discuss Hong Kong here, they fully realise the size of what is being achieved. Gross domestic product per capita in Hong Kong is now greater than that in the United Kingdom or Australia. It is now the world's eighth largest trading economy, it has the world's sixth largest foreign exchange reserves and the seventh largest stock exchange and its container port is now the busiest in the world.
In his 1993 and 1994 budgets, the Financial Secretary in Hong Kong was able once again to cut taxes, increase expenditure and put more money aside for Government reserves. Those reserves will be worth more than $HK150 billion—about £12 billion—when Hong Kong is returned to China on 30 June 1997. That is the latest estimate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hurd: May I finish this paragraph? Sixty per cent. of the work force in Hong Kong do not pay any salaries tax at all and only 2 per cent have to pay the top rate, which I have to admit to the House is an onerous 15 per cent.
Sir David Steel: As the Secretary of State passed rather quickly over the human rights section of his speech, I apologise to him for not realising that he had moved on. Does he have any expectation that China will ratify the United Nations covenant on human and political rights before the handover in 1997? Otherwise, what does our guarantee to Hong Kong mean?
Mr. Hurd: I have no undertaking on that part. We continue to say that that would be right. In any case, we believe that China has an obligation to report under the Hong Kong obligations in the covenant. I am coming to the matters outstanding between us. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: that point has not been cleared up and it is important.
Mr. Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary has also failed to mention the plight of the widows and the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Are the Government proposing to take any action in the near future to try to resolve the difficulties of those groups?
Mr. Hurd: Those are two separate points, which were raised in the Select Committee report. I am coming to more detailed Hong Kong matters, but the hon. Gentleman will know that special arrangements have been made to look after the widows' position by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Government have not been able to accept the Select Committee's recommendation on ethnic minorities. Hon. Members may want to raise that again, but we rest on the legislation that the House passed in 1990, on admissions from Hong Kong.
I was talking about the economic achievements of Hong Kong and I shall finish that point, if I may. The Hong Kong Government have been careful; they are prudent and we are
998
constantly having to point that out to the Chinese authorities, which obviously fear extravagance. However, their fears are not borne out by the figures.
The rate of increase in public spending in Hong Kong has kept pace and is closely in step with GDP growth: public expenditure amounts to less than 20 per cent. of GDP. But because of the amazing prosperity of the place, within that prudence, the Hong Kong Government have been able to increase spending on capital projects, on education and on health and welfare. The most striking symbol of that expenditure is, of course, the new international airport—the world's largest civil engineering project.
Such elements are all in place; they will continue. It is in our interests and that of China that the impetus of Hong Kong's economic success should continue undiminished. We are making a British commitment to that success after 1997 by building our consulate-general there for that time, which will be our largest in the world.
At the top of the Government's agenda for Hong Kong is the relationship with the future sovereign power. I have mentioned the disagreement over constitutional development. That is now largely behind us. Indeed, there have been some significant steps forward in exchanges with China over Hong Kong recently. In June, for example, we reached agreement on something very difficult: the disposal and development of the military estate in Hong Kong. That agreement has released some $HK65 billion worth of property to the Hong Kong Government.
At last, in November last year, we broadly reached an agreement with China on the financing arrangements for the new airport—it is being built and it is being financed out of current revenue—but detailed arrangements are still not in place. In November, we also agreed to set up a new infrastructure co-ordinating committee, to promote necessary co-operation on infrastructure projects between Hong Kong and the neighbouring province of Guangdong.
It is true, as right hon. and hon. Members will point out, that there is still a great deal to be done and little time in which to do it. In important areas of the agenda for the transition, progress has been slow or non-existent. When I saw Vice-Premier Qian last week, I urged him to help to ensure that the work of the Joint Liaison Group—the group that tackles the agenda—was speeded up.
In the weeks and months ahead, a high priority in that work will be the rule of law in Hong Kong, because the legal underpinning on which civil society and the business community rests is crucial to its distinctive international identity and the concept of two systems in one country. That legal underpinning is fundamental to Hong Kong's attractions to foreign investors and its status as one of the world's leading business and financial centres.
A part of that, which is of great practical and symbolic significance, is Hong Kong's need for its own Court of Final Appeal to take over the role that is performed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We reached an agreement with China in 1991, and the Hong Kong Government have prepared a draft Bill for the Legislative Council, to implement that agreement to establish the Court of Final Appeal before the handover in 1997. We look to China to give its early support to the Bill, so that the court can be set up in good time and good order.
Dame Jill Knight: Having visited Hong Kong not too long ago and spent some time with the chief of the Hong Kong police, I was concerned

999
to hear of their feelings about the problem of corruption, which has been dealt with effectively in Hong Kong through the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but is endemic in China. That is a very real worry. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about that worry or say anything to assuage it?
Mr. Hurd: I was about to say that the rule of law is one of the essential qualities in Hong Kong. Another is the professional and objective way in which the public services—the civil service and the police—carry out their duties. They have their problems in Hong Kong, but my hon. Friend is perfectly right. I think that they have overcome them and it is extremely important for the future of Hong Kong that that professionalism, which includes the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned, should be sustained and that China, as the new sovereign power, and the new autonomous Government in Hong Kong should do everything to protect that. It will involve some sensitive handling of the next 800 days by the Chinese Government and Chinese officials and Ministers, especially in the way that they handle the police, their prospects and the civil service in Hong Kong. I made that point to the Chinese Foreign Minister and it is one of the most important points that needs to be made.
Mr. Tim Renton: On the Court of Final, Appeal, Ambassador Ma, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom, was in the House yesterday evening to address the all-party Hong Kong parliamentary group, of which I am the chairman. At the meeting, he made it clear that China did not want the Bill setting up that court to be introduced at the Legislative Council without China's blessing—he did not want it to be introduced unilaterally. I understand that China has been considering the detail of the Bill for about 11 months and, as my right hon. Friend says, time is beginning to run out. Does he see any way out of the dilemma? Clearly, the introduction of the Bill and the setting up of the Court of Final Appeal is a matter of substantial importance to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Hurd: That is of substantial importance, and my right hon. Friend is right. There is a way of reconciling what the Chinese ambassador said with the requirements of the Government and people of Hong Kong. The answer is that we should reach agreement with the Chinese. We do not need a new framework agreement; we have got that agreement. Agreement has already been reached, for example, on the role of foreign judges. There is no disagreement between us and China—it was all agreed in 1991. We now need the agreement of China to the actual draft legislation, which the Chinese have and are considering. Expert talks are planned for the next few days—the date does not come immediately to mind, but those talks are imminent.
As I explained to the Foreign Minister, time is pressing. The Chinese know that. They know that we want to see the Court of Final Appeal in good working order well before the transfer of sovereignty. They know the timetable backwards from that to the passage of the necessary legislation by LegCo. There is time to answer any remaining questions from the Chinese and time to reach agreement. That is what we seek. I hope that they seek it, too.
1000
We need also greater certainty on the adaptation of Hong Kong's 600 Ordinances and 1,000 pieces' of subsidiary legislation to make them compatible with the Basic Law. A great deal of that will involve technical, professional work, without main political content, but it must be done. We need to speed up the slow business of localising to Hong Kong legislation previously extended to the territory by Order in Council. A raft of multilateral and bilateral international agreements underpin the status of Hong Kong as a first-world economy and society. Those agreements need to be extended, transformed and applied to the new special administrative region.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I should like the Foreign Secretary to pay particular attention to public health implications, because there have always been enormous differences between the public health rules in Hong Kong and those in the People's Republic. Those differences pose a problem for any doctors in Hong Kong, who frequently find themselves attacked, not on the basis of the adequacy of their medicine, but on the basis of their perceived status as people trained under a previous colonial administration.
Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly consider that. We have had, for example, a discussion with the Chinese about sewage pollution in the harbour, which bears on the hon. Lady's request. The Hong Kong Government felt that they had to get on with stage 1 of their scheme to deal with that pollution. The Chinese had some questions and doubts about that, which, I hope, have now been resolved. Certainly, the Government are going ahead with that work. That work illustrates the importance of maintaining the standards of all kinds to which Hong Kong is accustomed, while co-operating with China in the transition.
In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) about the police, I have already referred to the crucial matter of confidence in the public services in Hong Kong. That confidence in the reputation of Hong Kong for clean and efficient administration is crucial for the future prosperity and stability of the territory. One of our most important tasks in the next two years is to work with China—it must be with China—for a smooth transition in the civil service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford asked me about one aspect of immigration and nationality arrangements. We have plenty of work to do. We need to clarify with China the provisions for right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997; and to establish arrangements for eligibility for and the issue of the new passport for the permanent residents of the new special administrative region, which is what Hong Kong would be. I discussed that with the Chinese Foreign Minister. We need to continue to discuss in the joint liaison group the matter of visa-free travel for holders of Hong Kong special administrative region passports and holders of British national (overseas) passports. We and the Governor want to do that in co-operation with China.
In October, in his address to LegCo, the Governor set out a series of proposals for co-operation. He promised, for example, full co-operation with the preparatory committee that China will establish early next year to start work on the transfer of sovereignty. He pledged that he

1001
and his administration would give the chief executive designate of the special administrative region every help in preparing to take over.
Dr. John Marek: The Foreign Secretary is aware of my general support for his policies and those of LegCo and the Governor. Will he say a little more about the possible statelessness of Crown servants in Hong Kong? It is possible that certain servants of the Crown, for example, military personnel, the police and civil servants, will be stateless. The British House of Commons and the Government have a duty to ensure that none of those people find themselves in such a position after the takeover. Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps give an assurance to those people that we shall do our duty and ensure that they do not fall into any such position after 1997?
Mr. Hurd: I do not understand that those people would be stateless. The issue is more about access to this country and so on. However, rather than answer in detail off the cuff, I shall ask the Minister of State to elaborate on that in his reply.
I repeat: the British Government and the Hong Kong Government want to and need to co-operate with China to ensure the smoothest possible transition for Hong Kong and the fulfilment by both sides of what we undertook under the joint declaration. There has been some improvement in that co-operation, but if the transition is to be as smooth as possible, and as smooth as Hong Kong needs, we shall need to work even more closely together. There is a shared interest in doing so.
Of course, Hong Kong will continue to matter greatly to Britain, even after the total transfer of sovereignty, but China has a huge and growing stake there, too. Hong Kong's economy now corresponds to 26 per cent. of the gross domestic product of China, up from 18 per cent. in 1992—an astonishing figure, given that China has been growing fast and Hong Kong is very small. Hong Kong is hugely important to China—more so than it was even three years ago. We therefore have a shared interest in successful co-operation. That will require political will on both sides.
As the 800 days tick by, it is right that, increasingly, people in Hong Kong and outside Hong Kong will look to China, the new sovereign power, for reassurance about the future of Hong Kong. I believe that the Chinese leaders, past and future, understand increasingly the scale and complexity of the responsibilities that they will take over on 1 July 1997. We want to turn that understanding into practical, concrete steps, which the community in Hong Kong is seeking.
I have spent most of my time discussing Hong Kong, but that is right, because it is—although not the only element—the central element in the relationship between Britain and China. I hope that I have shown that the interests that our two countries have in common, in respect of Hong Kong and in respect of the other links between us, go far beyond the differences that have from time to time divided us. Together, we—that is, Britain, China and Hong Kong—need to build a stronger and deeper partnership for the 800 days until the transfer of sovereignty, and indeed thereafter.
4.37 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the opportunity for a debate about China and Hong Kong.
I echo the observation of the Foreign Secretary that China is a major power, and will become an increasingly large power. It has always had one of the largest populations. It now has one of the fastest-growing economies, which is on course to become one of the largest economies, of the world. For that reason, I share the Foreign Secretary's opinion that it is important that China should take its place in the World Trade Organisation. In view of its role in world trade, it would be quite wrong if China were not a member.
That role, as China's economy grows, will also develop into a stronger political role. I noted that the Foreign Secretary met his opposite number in China most recently in New York this month, at the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty. He must be aware that China has taken a lead in the discussions at that review conference and has staked out a clear position that agreement to indefinite extension must be achieved by consensus, not by majority vote. That position has evoked considerable support from the non-nuclear states present in New York, and illustrates the way in which China will increasingly have a power to influence the outcome of international negotiations and to shape the debate in international forums. It is therefore right that the House should consider our relationship with that power.
The Foreign Secretary said that we do not need to choose between having a foreign policy on China or having a foreign policy on Hong Kong. I have some sympathy with the point that we do not have to choose between the two, but we shall not get our relationship with China right if we do not get our policy on Hong Kong right.
I want to consider why this debate is important. It touches on the future of that territory, which is now by far the largest overseas direct interest of the British Administration. We do not approach the debate in a party political spirit. I hope that I do not disappoint the House when I say that I do not intend to make this a partisan occasion. It is a subject that we should try to pursue with the least party political disagreement between us, and with the fullest unity on a national basis. It is important that we do so on two counts.
First, there are important human consequences of any decision in relation to the people of Hong Kong, of whom there are a large number, that we take in the Chamber or that the Government take. There are 6 million residents of Hong Kong, of whom just over 3 million hold British nationality of one form or another. We are dealing with a population that, in terms of total residents, is larger than Scotland and, in terms of British nationality, is larger than Wales. That is the human significance of the issues that we are discussing. We enjoy with those people close economic ties, cultural ties, which we can see in our cities, and historic ties. In the week when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe, it is appropriate to remember that many of those in Hong Kong served in that war.
There will be some disappointment in Hong Kong that, in the debate on Hong Kong during the week of remembrance, the Foreign Secretary was not able to respond to an intervention from my hon. Friend the

1003
Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) by offering British nationality to the war widows currently in Hong Kong. They constitute a small number and I do not accept that it would set an immense precedent to give them exceptional treatment, and I am sure that such a move would be welcomed on both sides of the House.
The second reason why it is of grave importance that we debate the subject and do so in a non-partisan spirit is that this is a time of anxiety in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary repeatedly stressed the importance of confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I agree that it is important, but we would fail the people of Hong Kong if we did not reflect in the debate the considerable unease in some quarters.
I have not seen the figures—I do not believe that the Government have published them—but I understand that the Government's survey of the civil service in Hong Kong has discovered that one third of senior civil servants wish to leave the service before the point of transition. Part of the reason for the anxiety is the continued demand by the Government of China for access to security files held by the Hong Kong Government—a demand repeated in the February session of the preliminary working committee of the Government of China.
There appears to be similar unease within the police force. The senior police officer, who was appointed to head the special unit to ensure that the top 3,000 officers remained after 1997, took early retirement last month saying that he did not wish to continue in service after the transition to Chinese rule.
The root of those anxieties is well understood by both sides of the House. It goes back to the distressing events five years ago in Tiananmen square and its surrounding streets. Images on television are powerful. It is perhaps paradoxical that those powerful images also have a capacity to ebb in the memory. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that the human consequences in China of the events in that period remain. Many people who were arrested in that month in 1989 are still in prison and are likely still to be in prison on 1 July 1997 at the point of the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong.
Some hon. Members will have seen the detailed report of Amnesty International on those who were arrested in that period and who are still held, despite being classified by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience. I shall refer only to one of the many—Chen Lantao, who was charged with counter-revolutionary propaganda and disturbing traffic. Those charges related to the fact that he attended peaceful demonstrations, made one speech and was accused of listening to the Voice of America radio station. For that behaviour, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. I hope that both sides of the House would say that that is an unacceptable infringement of the right to freedom of speech and does not represent acceptable governance or acceptable standards of political and civil freedom.
Those who took part in the Tiananmen square demonstrations were Chinese nationals. There are other concerns involving the treatment of other ethnic groups—most obviously, the continued denial of autonomy and political rights to the population of Tibet. It is important to stress in such a debate that my hon. Friends and I believe that the protection and promotion of human rights must be one of the consistent objectives of foreign policy.
1004
Those of us who have met representatives of the Chinese Government are familiar with the argument that western concepts of human rights are not appropriate in the different cultures of the orient and in the very different social and economic conditions of China.
I agree that it would be wrong to seek to impose the precise legal forms that we have evolved over centuries. That would be a new form of cultural imperialism. But the world has developed universal standards of human rights; they are embodied in the United Nations declaration of human rights. Every member of the United Nations is entitled to demand those universal standards of every other member of the United Nations. Nothing would go further to boost the confidence to which the Foreign Secretary referred than for China to accede to the international covenant on civil and political rights developed through the United Nations.
The events of Tiananmen square had a profound effect on the views of people resident in Hong Kong, and appear to have had a profound effect on the rulers of China as well. One of the issues with which we must now grapple is that those events appear to have left the rulers of China perhaps more hostile to democratic reform and more nervous about the impact on the rest of China of the political processes in Hong Kong. That may have been a factor in the slow progress in recent negotiations. There is a paradox in the fact that the events of five years ago have made progress towards democratic rights in Hong Kong more pressing, but have also made it more difficult to obtain the agreement of the Government of China.
We would fail if we had such a debate without acknowledging that each side must share the weight of its historic legacy and historic failures. Britain has been responsible for the government of Hong Kong for 150 years. We would be in a much stronger position in negotiating on the future of Hong Kong under China if we had not discovered democracy so strongly in the past five of those 150 years or if the present Government had made more rapid progress in the first five years after the joint declaration in 1984. As it is, we are in the slightly difficult position of saying that the lack of democracy that we have tolerated for 145 years will become intolerable two years from now when China takes over.
I welcome the fact that the Governor is currently carrying out a review of legislation to identify those provisions which limit press freedom. I understand that he has identified 41 provisions and that 28 of them have been dealt with, or are about to be dealt with in forthcoming legislation. That is good, and he will have the support of both sides of the House in that exercise. It must be a matter of regret that 41 provisions limiting press freedom have been left for reform if not at the last minute, then at the eleventh hour of British responsibility for Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary said that we debate issues about Hong Kong in this place from time to time. Before coming to the Chamber, I checked in the Library when we last debated the subject and I discovered that this is the first debate about Hong Kong in this Parliament.
It is certainly the first such debate since the Government appointed a former member of the Government as Governor of Hong Kong. That was a bold appointment on which we have not previously had the opportunity to congratulate the Government. It was a deliberate choice, which I presume reflected a studied intention on the part of the Foreign Office to make the role of the Governor more politicised.

1005
Last year, the Select Committee produced an excellent report about Hong Kong, in which it observed:
"There can be no denying that the British approach did change and that the new Governor's line was more robust."
I think that the Select Committee was then slightly startled to discover that the last three former ambassadors to Peking disagreed with the new Governor's line.
Some hon. Members may have read—as I am sure the Committee Chairman has—the paper by Sir Percy Cradock which appeared last year in World Today. Whatever view one takes about the substance of his argument, as a practising politician it is impossible not to admire the sustained invective with which he argues it. Any of us would be proud to use such rhetoric about our opponents. It demonstrates unusually strong feelings on the part of a former diplomat about a current Governor.
I shall approach the record of the present Governor of Hong Kong in a more consensual spirit. He has our full backing in trying to achieve an open and democratic process for the people of Hong Kong within the terms of the joint declaration and the Basic Law. There will always be room for legitimate debate about the details.
I confess that I am rather perplexed by the detail of the functional constituencies that have been created. Functional constituency No. 9 covers the services and it extends a franchise to everyone employed in the civil service, the public service, education and health, and those who work in private entertainment and leisure services, electrical appliance repairers, cobblers and barbers. I think that it would be challenging for any hon. Member to claim to represent consensually such a constituency.
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would get the barbers' vote.
Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary is probably correct; that is a fair observation.
There would also appear to be practical problems, as I understand that registration is not proceeding particularly easily in such difficult constituencies. Therefore, I can understand why some in the Chinese Government regard that cumbersome mechanism as merely a device for getting around the limits in the Basic Law about the number of people who may be elected directly from geographic constituencies.
Whatever argument there may be about the details, there is no division between us about the direction of reforms. There must be no doubt about the united resolve of all political parties in Britain that Hong Kong should fulfil the terms of the joint declaration, in that it should enjoy a high degree of autonomy, its legislature should be constituted by election and the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people should be protected by law.
The objectives of the joint declaration provide a framework for the constitution of Hong Kong not merely to 1 July 1997 but for the 50 years beyond that. There are now fewer than 800 days until the transition of sovereignty. In those remaining 800 days, the test of whether we are successful in the administration that we provide during that period and the test of Governor Patten's achievement is not how much we can do, but how much will remain in place permanently beyond that time.
The Governor will leave Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, but the population of Hong Kong will stay—the people have nowhere else to go. If this debate is to address the concerns, welfare and rights of the Hong Kong people,
1006
we must look not only at the structures that we are building but at how stable they will be after we have left. I said earlier that this is the first time that we have debated the subject in the present Parliament. As we review the last three years and Governor Patten's period in office, I think that it should concern the House that during that time, we have made the least progress towards agreement with China about the future of Hong Kong after 1997.
Earlier this month, the joint liaison group met for the 32nd time. The communiqué issued at the end of the meeting was depressing. It admitted that there had been no progress on the issue of the Court of Final Appeal, no progress in the dispute over container terminal 9, and no progress on the right of abode. As time runs out, the pace of progress in Hong Kong appears to be slowing down rather than speeding up.
The people in Hong Kong who are watching the proceedings live may be rather disappointed that, having chosen to initiate the debate, the Government have no new initiative to offer as to how we will move out of deadlock. There are three major strategic concerns in the current deadlock. The first relates to democratic reforms. Those who heard the speech of the Chinese ambassador last night heard him repeat his Government's determination to dismantle the district boards, municipal councils and the Legislative Council, which proceeded to election without the agreement of the Chinese Government. It is not recognised by China, which has stated repeatedly that it will not continue beyond 1 July 1997. On the present basis, there will be no through train, as was hoped.
Some people argue that China will suspend those bodies on 1 July 1997, replace them with an appointed provisional body and subsequently relaunch them as elected bodies, having saved face and put itself in a position where it can claim that it and not the previous Government decided to set them up. I am concerned that that may be only a comforting theory. Even if that is the Chinese Government's intention, once the bodies have been suspended and replaced by appointed bodies, there will be a strong temptation not to return to the elected bodies.
The Foreign Secretary seemed to share the anxiety about how our present conduct will bear upon what happens in Hong Kong after 1997. In addressing the House in February 1990, he said:
"Those who suggest that whatever we do now China would be obliged to accept in 1997 are out of touch with reality".—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 580.]
I hope that, five years later, that belief does not provide a basis for policy. We would fail the purpose of the debate if we did not press upon the Government the importance that any changes must be permanently bedded. If it is to be confident about its future, Hong Kong not only needs continuity after July 1997; it needs to be able to see soon that there will be continuity after that time.
A second strategic concern is the lack of progress in the past three years on the businesslike, but essential, agenda of renewing treaties and contracts. On that point also, the communiqué from the Joint Liaison Group was depressing. The communiqués normally state that agreement has been reached on a number of multilateral agreements. However, in this case only one agreement had been reached, concerning trade with New Zealand. I believe that some 200 such agreements are still to be renewed. It is difficult to see how that can occur by

1007
1 July 1997. Even if political agreement is provided at the last minute, it will not be possible to achieve the necessary technical work.
The third issue to which the Foreign Secretary referred was the Court of Final Appeal. The joint declaration is absolutely clear on that point: final adjudication must remain within Hong Kong and there should be no further appeal to a legal body outside that country. No one issue is more important to resolve. It is not a marginal issue; it is crucial to Hong Kong's ability to prosper as a business based on the rule of law. Nothing would do more to undermine confidence than to suggest that final adjudication would not stay in Hong Kong or, for that matter, that the judges in the Court of Final Appeal would not be independent of political interference. Anxiety about that must be reinforced by the dispute over the container terminal, where the Government of China have blocked the appointment of Jardine Matheson as the contractor for reasons that do not relate to the nature of the tender or contract.
If Hong Kong is to continue to thrive as an enterprise economy, it must be on the basis that contracts are awarded because they are won by people who can comply with the contract, not arbitrarily on the basis of political judgment about the business concerned. I hope that, in the next two years, it will be possible for the Government of China to recognise the importance of that principle, because it is in China's interest that Hong Kong should survive and thrive as a business community. Hong Kong provides a quarter of China's gross domestic product. It is the gateway between China and the global economy. It is the source and route of much of the inward investment for China. The future of the Chinese economy is, in part, based on the continuing success of Hong Kong.
The same consideration that makes Hong Kong of such economic importance to China also makes Hong Kong important to Britain. Throughout my speech, I have dealt with the interests of the people of Hong Kong, and that must be our first concern. It is a sufficient concern on its own, but we also have an incentive to ensure the smooth transition and stable future for Hong Kong on the basis of the interests of Britain and the British economy. Hong Kong provides us with immediate access to south China. As the Foreign Secretary said, growth in that area is phenomenal. It is the fastest-growing economy in the world. It has high-quality investment and high value-added products, and it has a rapidly expanding market, which has grown 400 per cent. in the 10 years since the joint declaration.
We must acknowledge the dramatic success of that economic strategy, and acknowledge that the Chinese road to capitalism has proved much more successful than the route pioneered by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in central and eastern Europe. China is now a major economic power on the Pacific rim, where there are a growing number of similarly fast-developing economies. By the second decade of the 21st century, six of the 10 largest economies in the world will be around the Pacific, not the Atlantic. That will make our ties with Hong Kong of increasing importance to us. It is vital that we maintain our continuing relationship and use that direct access to the region of the world with the fastest-growing economy.
1008
Those ties must not end on 1 July 1997. Their economic importance will become even greater for Britain as the economy of that region grows, and their diplomatic value will be of greatest significance to the residents of Hong Kong as their strongest link with the world outside China. Let us use the next 800 days to ensure that our economic and historical ties with Hong Kong continue beyond 1 July 1997 and that they are ties with a Hong Kong that retains a society that is both democratic and respectful of human rights, and that is operating in an economy that is both enterprising and prosperous.
5.3 pm
Sir Edward Heath: As I was able to spend a fortnight over Easter in the far east—China, Vietnam and Hong Kong—I am glad of this opportunity to intervene for a few minutes on this important matter.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the quiet and conciliatory way in which he opened the debate. Some people in the far east are worried about this debate today because of some of the things that might have been said, which were almost said by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). It is important that we consider matters realistically and in perspective.
What impressed me most in visiting those countries was their emphasis on being Asia. Hitherto, one has known them as individual countries, and they have usually discussed with us some form of help or aid. That was no longer the case. They said that they were all Asian and knew that a large part of the world wanted to invest in them and trade with them, and that that was what they were building up.
I found it rather disconcerting when I went to see the pandas research area out in the wild. I said to the director, "I am sorry that you don't export pandas any more. Chairman Mao gave me two, but you broke the rule and again sent some to London zoo, which have now died. Now I'd like some more. Break the rule again." They said that the rule had gone, so I said, "Well, that's excellent, then. I can have two pandas." "Yes", they said, "You can have them for a year, five years or 10 years. You just sign a document to say how long you want to keep them for."
I said that that was excellent, and they said, "Yes, it will cost you $1 million a year." I said, "What? $1 million a year?" They said, "Yes, sign the document for 10 years and you put down $10 million." I argued that Chairman Mao gave me pandas, and that he would be looking down from above in horror at that proposal. "Ah, well," they said, "things have changed since that time. We now have a market economy."
Vietnam, too, is now well on the road to a market economy. Ministers there explained how they were doing that, and said that what they most wanted to establish was an infrastructure. They told me that they get on perfectly well with Britain and such business men from Britain who went there, but were sad that we were so far behind all the others. That is true. One of the reasons is that we dragged along behind the Americans, while others went in as soon as the opportunity occurred. They have now established themselves well and, once again, we must catch up.
I now come to the main topic of discussion, which is China and Hong Kong. The position of China today has been emphasised both by the Foreign Secretary and the

1009
hon. Member for Livingston. To my regret, I do not believe for a moment that Asia as such, or even China in its present position, is fully understood or recognised by the people of this country, even by business men.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will go to China shortly, and take 125 business men. Prime Minister Li Peng assured me that he would receive him and discuss those matters with him, which is exceptional. There will be an opportunity for business men, but it requires action on their part. They should not treat it just as a nice visit to see what the place is like, and I hope that they will follow it up.
In addition to the other figures that have been given, China today has $52 billion in reserves, which is quite exceptional. Its purchasing power as a country is third in the world. One may say that that must be divided between 1.25 billion people but, from the point of view of making purchases outside China, it is an enormous sum, and it will grow, as the Foreign Secretary emphasised.
That is the realistic position against which we must put Hong Kong. To my great regret, mistakes have been made over Hong Kong. One of the things that I agreed with Chairman Mao Tse-Tung in 1974 was that there would be a smooth handover of Hong Kong to China. He said to Chou En-Lai, "Neither you nor I will be here to see that, but Heath and Wing Lun Weng will be." He has died, so I am the sole remaining factor in that agreement.
I find that the great majority of people in Hong Kong, with any responsibilities, particularly business men, now want to get on with the changeover. They do not want another row or explosion, and that is the danger as regards the appeal court. It could lead to another explosion, and we must recognise that the Chinese will be responsible for Hong Kong in 800 days. They know the power they have, and what they want to bring about. We are foolish if we ignore that, because that is the situation that now holds sway in Hong Kong, certainly among those whom I have mentioned.
I discussed the matter of the appeal court widely while I was there. The British Government and Hong Kong and the Chinese Government came to an agreement in 1991. It was, in fact, a rather remarkable agreement. It was agreed that the supreme appeal court would consist of five judges, only the chief justice would be Chinese, and the others could be any nationality. Four would be permanent, one would be brought in to deal with particular matters and they could come from outside Hong Kong—they could be from Australia, New Zealand or Britain. However, the fact that China accepted that in an agreement was in itself remarkable. That still holds. The Chinese are perfectly prepared to continue.
Both sides having agreed that, it was put to the Legislative Council, which chucked it out. Why did we find it necessary to put the matter to an advisory body or accept what happened? However, we did. Three years then passed before we reached the next stage, which was to have a draft and put it to Beijing. Beijing says that it has had it for five months, but it is we who are complaining. We kept it for three years, and, what is more, the Governor has now set a time limit. He says that the answer has to be back by July, or he will go ahead with what he wants to do.
I am afraid that the response from Beijing is that it will not be dictated to by Hong Kong. There is room for an approach. In fact, an approach must be made. We cannot have an explosion about this. As I suggested, the approach
1010
should be that Beijing says clearly to those responsible that it wants to establish the appeal court before 30 June, and has already said what is agreeable to it. Then the Governor is in a position to tell Hong Kong that he is withdrawing any question of a dictated time limit, and he will continue negotiations on what was agreed as long ago as 1991. That is the positive approach to take to all these problems.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned sewerage. Yes, there is a row, not because the Chinese do not want sewerage for their health but because they believe that the proposals will not be adequate for Hong Kong in the future. Surely there is room for discussion. If the Chinese want to do more about sewerage, they will be there in the future, so let everyone agree on what has to be done. It cannot be said that Hong Kong is penniless—far from it. It has the money. For heaven's sake, let us do what both sides agree is necessary for the health and safety of the people of Hong Kong. We cannot have an explosion about that.
What about the general constitutional situation? There has been a complete misjudgment. People thought that the Chinese would not do anything about it, but that, when the time came, they would accept it. It is obvious that they will not. They said that firmly, right from the beginning. As the Foreign Secretary hinted, there are parts of the Basic Law whose meaning is not exactly clear. That is a matter for discussion and something to be thrashed out. It should not be a case of our putting forward a single view and saying that, if the Chinese do not accept it we shall go ahead anyway.
That was particularly the case with the exchange of letters about the elections, in which the Foreign Secretary said at the end that he hoped that that would be accepted. It was a hope; one could say that he was justified in hoping, but it was not an agreement. That is what Beijing said—it was not an agreement. However, without consultation, we go ahead. The result was, of course, an explosion. That is the explanation of what happened. The Chinese will change things again when they take over in 1997. They will go on what was agreed in the Basic Law and in the correspondence that followed. It is pointless to doubt that.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary mentioned two other important issues. The first was Chinese instability. People right at the top in China believe that we are trading on future Chinese instability. I am afraid that there were many mentions in the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that supported them in that view. They think that we believe that they are going the same way as Russia, so we are delaying as much as we can and getting things fixed up that we had not before, and that we think that we can hold on to Hong Kong after 1997 for that reason. The Foreign Secretary stated dogmatically that that is not the case.
Anyone can see that China is not going the way of Russia. If there ever were any danger of that happening, the Chinese, having seen what happened to the Soviet Union, would not allow it to happen to them. They are absolutely clear about that, and will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent it. I also went to Szechwan and the south, where the people do not want to go the way of Russia. They have the utmost contempt for Russia, and the further west, the greater that contempt.
The second matter is the idea that, when Deng Xiaoping dies, there will be an enormous power struggle that will tear China apart and result in collapse. I do not believe

1011
for one moment that there is any truth in that. Having been there 10 days ago, I can tell the House that I have never seen the top people so relaxed, although I hope they will not mind my saying so. They are relaxed and confident, and have everything at their fingertips. They see that they are in a strong position in world trade; they have substantial financial reserves of $US52 billion and a surplus on the balance of payments which is very large—so much so that people outside are complaining about it. I see no immediate possibility of a great power struggle when Deng Xiaoping dies.
I am glad that the Foreign Secretary cleared up those issues. He has done so from the highest level of government, and I hope Beijing will accept what he says. It does not recognise that a parliamentary group does not have any power, and has very little influence.
What happens to our trade in these circumstances? There is no doubt that they have been damaging. The Foreign Secretary rightly said that our trade has increased from a small start. Japanese trade is now worth $HK32 billion a year, while ours is approaching $HK4 billion. American trade is worth something over $HK22 billion, and German trade is more than $HK8 billion. Clearly a tremendous amount needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Livingston mentioned human rights. I believe that there has to be a fairly deep re-think about the matter, and in particular, how it should be handled. One of the other messages that I received out there was that China will not be told by anyone what it has to do. That is not peculiar to Asia—I found the same in Moscow under the new regime there. They believe that people can help in various ways, but not tell them what to do. That notion applies to human rights.
If we want action on human rights, we have to be able to influence people and we can best do that by working with them, not by lecturing them all the time from outside. There are changes. I became more and more convinced that people will notice the changes. They will carry on regardless of whether we change—we have seen that in south-east Asia where people say, "Sorry, we shall deal with things as we believe to be right."
There has been economic development, but there has also been political development. It has not been according to our systems, but there is undoubtedly development. I was once told by Deng Xiaoping that China was going to have 1.25 billion people by the year 2000, and he asked what political institutions I would recommend for their lives. How could I say anything? No one had told me what to say. That is a real practical problem in the second largest country in the world.
Mention was made of Tibet. I went there myself a few years ago, and I have talked frequently to the Dalai Lama. He made an agreement with Mao Tse-Tung in 1953 about Tibet, its future and its relationships. That was accepted by both sides, and as a result, the monasteries were opened.
I spoke to the people who came out of the monasteries. There is a big monastery some 20 miles outside Lhasa. Its 11,000 monks had been put there by their families. Under old Tibetan law, the fourth child had to be put into a monastery. After the monks had been given their freedom, 229 were left. I spoke to one who was farming outside. He told me: "I can never get rid of the mark it has left on me mentally, but I decided to come out."
1012
The Dalai Lama, who had made the agreement, escaped from the military rising in Tibet in 1959. It was not his rising, but he decided that his only option was to escape. I spoke to him on various occasions, and some 10 years ago I asked Deng Xiaoping: "Can he not come back?" and he replied, "Yes, he can come back. He can come to Beijing, and we will provide him with a house and everything he requires to live there, and he will be able to go to Tibet whenever he likes. There is only one condition, and that is that he goes to Tibet as the spiritual leader, and not the political leader of a party."
Mr. Chris Mullin: I have also been to Tibet. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people of Tibet should decide whether the Dalai Lama should be allowed to return and what system of government should exist in their country?
Sir Edward Heath: It would be fashionable for them to have a referendum, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would accept the result. It may well be that the great majority of people in Tibet today do not want the Dalai Lama back, but if he wants to return, he was told 10 years ago that he could go back as the spiritual leader of all his flock in Tibet. In that respect, he cannot complain, but he has never gone back. He has never gone to Beijing to discuss it further.
In respect of our overall position, we must now settle the appeal court. We must deal with the other problems, working with the appeal court and recognising that it will have the ultimate decision.
It is difficult to see any way in which we can get over the problem of elections. I am absolutely convinced that it was a terrible mistake, as are a large number of people in Hong Kong now that they see the outcome of the decision. I have spoken to them, and that is their view. They want to settle the matter, get 30 June behind them, and carry on with their trade and business.
We heard just now all about corruption. Yes, there is corruption in Hong Kong. I was given graphic descriptions of how the Mafia is now working. It is trying to establish a connection on the other side of the border, so that, when Hong Kong becomes part of the mainland, it will still be able to operate. I have the utmost admiration for the police chief and the work he is doing, and he will stay on.
The trade from Taiwan has greatly increased over the past three years, because it goes through Hong Kong and into mainland China. I asked those responsible in Beijing whether that trade will continue when Hong Kong becomes part of the mainland. They told me that they have already decided that Taiwan can continue to trade through Hong Kong after 30 June 1997. That is one reassurance for Hong Kong as well as for Taiwan, and is fully justified. I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary will be able to continue that reconciliation and recognise that the ultimate decision rests with China, whether we like it or not.
We have been in Hong Kong as leaseholder, and now we are handing it back to its owner. When one does that, one has some obligations. As has already been said, we have had Hong Kong for nearly 150 years, and what did we do about all those issues? We did nothing. Only when the time came to hand it back did we say that they all should be addressed immediately and in exactly the way

1013
we wanted. The House and the Government cannot get away with that. We must be realistic, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be so in the remaining 800 days.
5.24 pm
Sir David Steel: On this occasion, I am not in total agreement with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but I certainly bow to his superior experience of life in China.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point: that the Chinese Government have consistently wondered why only now, at the point of handover and in the past few years, we have expressed any great interest in democracy in Hong Kong. I hope that I am not breaking a confidence when I say that one of those who expressed such a view some years ago was the then hon. Member for Bath, Chris Patten, after a parliamentary visit to Hong Kong. In common with many of us who have been to Hong Kong, he expressed concern at the lack of any democratic development and other items of progress, over which he has belatedly been presiding as Governor.
The impact of the change in China on someone such as myself, who has not visited China anything like as often as the right hon. Gentleman, and who has been there only twice with a gap of 10 years between, may be even more dramatic than it is on a regular visitor. I have never seen, anything as astonishing as the gap in Chinese economic development that has been overcome in a decade. It is absolutely staggering.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to remind the House of the present and future power of the Chinese economy. I found it interesting that China is developing faster economically the nearer one gets to Hong Kong from Shanghai southwards. The political climate is by no means monolithic. It is easier to have free political conversation in the parts of China that are economically developed than in the historic capital. That gives me hope that there will be change in the long run.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about false comparisons with the Soviet Union. The Chinese Government have a right to be irritated by those who think that China may go the same way as the Soviet Union. They hope not, and we must too. There can be a process of evolutionary change, starting with substantial changes in the market economy, that goes further than the pandas he mentioned, and is real and substantial in that extraordinary country. The parallel growth and success of the economy in Hong Kong and mainland China must be the basis of our optimism that, despite all its difficulties, the transition will be successful.
I have a particular affection for Hong Kong, because it happened to be the first territory that I visited as a new Member of Parliament way back in 1965. I have been there half a dozen times since—on the last occasion, about six months ago. What struck me forcibly on that last visit—again, with some surprise—was how optimistic people were, and how they were getting on with the job of making a success of their lives.
A few years ago, great anxiety was expressed that, as 1997 approached, everything would wind down and there might be an economic slump. On the contrary, investment is continuing, people are leading normal lives and there is a certain amount of optimism.
1014
Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I am not quite so sanguine about the views of the business men, whom I have also met. Business men are not notoriously deeply concerned about such issues as human rights and democratic development. They are naturally concerned with making money; that is their purpose.
We are politicians. We are supposed to be concerned about those wider issues, and we would be failing in our responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong if we ignored the fact that, in recent years, as democratic developments have been offered to them, they have seized them with both hands, and have elected their own choice of politicians to LegCo. That cannot be undone. Whatever decision the Chinese Government may take about how they treat LegCo after the transition in 1997, I trust that there will be no absurd short-sighted vendetta against those who have now been elected. Those members of LegCo were chosen by the citizens of Hong Kong to represent them, so they have a particular status and standing.
I thank the Minister of State for the excellent letter he sent those of us interested in the subject, which brought up to date the Government's relations with China in respect of Hong Kong. Like the former Prime Minister, I hope that settlement will be reached on the Court of Final Appeal. I support the proposal for a human rights commission by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I am concerned that that has not been accepted by the Government, and that there is no Bill of Rights.
I said when I intervened on the Foreign Secretary that there is as yet no sign of China ratifying the international covenant on civil and political rights. The joint declaration states:
"The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force."
We must have known in 1984 that those covenants, as applied to Hong Kong, cannot remain in force until and unless China ratifies them. The British Government's pledge to uphold those covenants ties the joint declaration to the broader structure of international law in an important and concrete way.
It disturbs me that when Li Peng visited Hong Kong last year, he said that Bejiing was not obliged to make reports to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights after 1997. There appears to be a complete impasse, with the British Government saying that the covenants apply to Hong Kong and remain in force, but a lack of any mechanism to make them remain in force. I should be grateful if the Minister will comment when he winds up.
We have dealt badly with the ethnic minority of non-Chinese in Hong Kong who hold British passports. They number 7,000—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. It is unfair not to have granted them full citizenship rights in Britain. Not many have expressed a wish to take up residence in this country, but we have not dealt fairly with them.
There is a curious disparity between our treatment of those 7,000 people and the 100,000 in Macao who have been granted Portuguese citizenship and who, under the European Union, will have the right to come to Britain. It seems bizarre that 100,000 people sitting in Macao can have the theoretical right of residence here, but that 7,000 persons in Hong Kong for whom we are responsible do

1015
not have that right. I should be grateful for further clarification of the Government's intentions for that minority.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the Governor's review of some existing legislation, particularly that affecting press freedom. I hope that he will closely examine all Hong Kong's statutory provisions. There are examples of colonies where we left behind emergency legislation from the colonial era that was subsequently used against the population. It would be a terrible indictment of our legacy if we were to leave on the statute book measures that could be used by a future Government to restrict press freedom and other freedoms in Hong Kong.
The constitution of Kenya, for example, still contains provisions from the Mau Mau emergency that we imposed in the early 1950s. They should not be there, but are used wrongly on occasions by the Government. We do not want the same mistake made again in Hong Kong. I would welcome the Minister's clear assurance on that point.
The final round of democratic elections will be held in September. I hope that the Chinese Government will change their mind and live with the existing LegCo—that must be our first position. If they do not, I hope that they will recognise the status of the successful candidates in the elections. Is it the British Government's intention to treat those elections the same way as others and to send international observers to oversee the freeness and fairness of those elections? That might be a useful precedent.
The political arguments are bound to continue when the transition is reached and there is the one country, two systems, on which the British and Chinese Governments have agreed. People in Hong Kong ask for minimal interference from Beijing. It is not unreasonable for Beijing to be entitled to ask for minimal interference from Hong Kong.
There must be some sort of self-denying ordinance on the part of Hong Kong politicians to mind their own business and not to meddle in China's internal affairs. If they exercise such a self-denying ordinance, their position will be more respected, not less respected, in Bejiing. However, that does not involve the rest of us in the international community in making any similar self-denying ordinance.
It was a terrible mistake to state in the joint agreement with China—I do not know how on earth we ever assented to this—that democratic politicians in Hong Kong must not have links with international organisations. I find that particularly sad because I am currently serving as president of Liberal International, which is not allowed to invite colleagues in Hong Kong to its meetings.
In south-east Asia, there is a new, self-generated organisation—the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats. It includes the governing party in Thailand and the opposition party in Taiwan, but it cannot invite fellow democrats from Hong Kong to participate in its meetings. That cannot be right, and I hope that that restriction will be removed in time.
I note that the President of the Board of Trade is soon to visit China. I hope that, in our trade links, we will continue to raise human rights questions. I disagree with the former Prime Minister—we cannot pretend that, because China has a different culture, events such as
1016
Tiananmen square do not matter and can be forgotten as years pass. We cannot completely ignore events inside Tibet under the Chinese authorities, much as I agree that there should be dialogue between Peking and the Dalai Lama. Also, while we have been extremely immobile in our Government policy on Taiwan, Cabinet Ministers from France and Canada have visited the country. We have not got even that far.
There is a useful and constructive engagement to be had with China. It ought to be positive, but our trading links should not be purely that. They must also sustain a dialogue on wider issues. The People's Republic of China is getting its economy right, but it has some way to go before we can fully and rationally accept it in the comity of nations.
5.37 pm
Mr. Tim Renton: I am glad to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have a number of interests to declare. I am vice-chairman of the British Council, and will refer later to its work in Hong Kong and China. I am a consultant to Robert Fleming, the international investment bank, which has made many successful investments in Hong Kong and China.
I am also chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Britain and Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was right to say that, like other all-party groups, it does not have any particular influence or standing. However, in the nearly three years that I have been its chairman—and at a time when, for one reason or another, we have not debated the issue in the House—that all-party group, which is always well attended by Members of both Houses, has provided a useful forum. It has provided a forum for the Governor, who has been able to make his views known to parliamentarians of all parties, and for visiting LegCo members, who were often not fully in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or the Governor and were able to give us their views. Yesterday, the Chinese ambassador, Mr. Ma, addressed the all-party group, and made plain—using extremely blunt language, extremely well delivered—China's current views on some of the problems mentioned this afternoon.
By far and away my greatest interest in Hong Kong, though, is simply that of a visitor, business man, politician, and former Foreign Office Minister, who has visited it regularly, and did so one year after the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I first went to Hong Kong in 1966 as a fairly young business man. I was, like so many of us, immediately struck by the extraordinary excitement, drive and dynamism of the place. I suppose that if I had invested all my meagre net worth in some tiny corner of a dilapidated warehouse on the waterfront in Kowloon, I would now be very rich indeed. Unfortunately, I did not do that.
Every time that I go back to Hong Kong, I am, like other hon. Members, always immensely struck by the fact that there are more tunnels under the harbour, built with incredible speed; more high-rise housing—the flats are treasured by those who live in them—more schools; and more and better skyscrapers. Indeed, if one looks at the recent budget in Hong Kong—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to some of the details—one

1017
sees that it really is mouthwatering stuff: an increase in $HK210 million for funds for technology development; $HK2.5 billion to be spent on purchasing premises for welfare services; and another $HK1 billion to build the new Tsing Yi bridge. I remember that when I was first staying with Chris Patten—he was about to make his first address to the Legislative Council, in October 1992, to which I shall refer in a minute—he said to me, "Any British Chancellor of the Exchequer, any British spending Minister, would simply love to have the resources that are available to the Hong Kong Administration." The new Financial Secretary, Donald Tsang, who has just been appointed, is taking over from Sir Hamish Macleod in September, and is the first local to occupy that extremely important post.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for intervening, as the point has long since past, so it seems illogical to intervene, but let me return to what he said earlier about his own group, which he chairs with great skill. I think that he may have been mistaken, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has just told me that he was thinking of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, not the Hong Kong all-party group, when making his comments.
Mr. Renton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will be able to answer that more than adequately when he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. David Howell: I certainly will.
Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend does not need me to speak for him.
There is no doubt that the administration in Hong Kong in recent years has been fantastically successful. It is a record of which the United Kingdom will be able to be extraordinarily proud at the time of the handover of territory on 30 June 1997.
As I have just mentioned, I had the good fortune to be staying at Government House with Chris Patten when he made his speech to the Legislative Council on 7 October 1992. I must say to my right hon. and very good Friend—I hope that he does not mind me referring to him as such—the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, that I stayed on in Hong Kong for quite a few days afterwards. I remember the tremendous enthusiasm with which Chris Patten's speech was greeted, on all sides—from taxi drivers, to whom I spoke, to senior civil servants. The only group who differed from the views put forward by Chris Patten, in those three or four busy days, was a small group of business men whom I met on my last day in Hong Kong before going up to Shenzhen and travelling through Guangdong, at the invitation of the Chinese Government. They said that the constitutional changes, the changes in electoral reform, which the Governor was suggesting, simply would not be acceptable to China. In particular, the extension of the franchise in the functional constituencies would not be accepted. Alas, those business men were right.
To draw an analogy from tennis, I think that our good friend Chris Patten made an opening serve with the ball marked "constitutional reform" and the Chinese simply never returned the ball. That is a matter of very considerable regret. I believe that Chris Patten, in his speech to the Legislative Council, had a clear mission in
1018
his mind. That mission was firmly rooted in his own highly successful career as a liberally minded politician in this country. The mission was to leave a legacy of a very well-founded democracy in Hong Kong from 1 July 1997 onwards—a democracy that is based not on factions, oligarchies or a few cronies but on the worth and standing in the community of those who are elected from many different sections and areas by a substantial number of voters. Of course, the aim of a legacy is, by definition, that it should survive, not only for a few years but for generations, growing and becoming stronger within the unique framework of one country, two systems.
I believe that Chris Patten, both as Governor and as an individual, could not have done more to achieve that democratic legacy. All of us, from whatever party and whatever our views about the future relationship with Beijing, to which I shall refer later, must regret that the tennis ball was never returned in any shape or form and that 17 rounds of talking on constitutional issues have led to 17 stalemates. That is an issue on which the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Beijing have simply failed to agree.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup have said, quite rightly, this is a leaf in the book of continuing relationships, which simply must be put behind us. We must now look forward and consider what other things need to be done in the 796 days that remain until 30 June 1997.
I now touch briefly on two matters that have not yet been raised in the comprehensive speeches made by other hon. Members.
Sir Edward Heath: I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend said about the reception that Chris Patten's speech received. One must accept that the taxi drivers and others were not really fully aware of the Basic Law or of the exchange of letters between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese. They just saw it, quite naturally, as opportunities to vote. That atmosphere has changed very considerably, I can assure my right hon. Friend. Would it not have been more appropriate if Chris Patten had accepted the invitation to go and discuss it all with the Chinese before he made his speech? Would there not have been less chance of an explosion if he had done that? Those are the problems and they have left a legacy with which we are now trying to deal, as he is.
Mr. Renton: I understand what my right hon. Friend has said. Perhaps we should not go further down that path now. He will remember the speech as well as I do, and, of course, Chris Patten made the point very clearly that, having made those proposals, he was going to Beijing to discuss them just a few weeks later. There it is. That is behind us and we must now look forward. Obviously, the wish of the House and of the Hong Kong Administration is to make the next 800 days as fruitful as possible for the future success of Hong Kong after 1 July 1997.
I want to touch on the matter of the British Council, of which I am a vice-chairman. The teaching of English in Hong Kong, the training of people to teach English and the exhibitions of contemporary British art and culture that the British Council has sent to Hong Kong, have formed an important part of our activities over a number of years. We first established the council in Hong Kong in 1948 and English language teaching started in 1975. The aim has been to help to secure Britain's long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with Hong Kong in

1019
the run-up to 1997 and to turn that into a lasting and productive relationship with the special administrative region and the People's Republic of China.
More recently, the council has reopened its offices in China. It was represented in China from the early 1940s to 1952. Operations began again, really rather early, in January 1979 when a British Council officer was attached to the embassy. In 1991, the council moved away from the embassy to its own office block, which has open public access—the same being true of its office in Shanghai.
The council's aim is, of course, to promote a wider knowledge of the United Kingdom and the English language and to foster a positive Sino-British relationship. The policies that it is pursuing to achieve those aims are, first, to enhance among decision makers, opinion formers and future leaders a British reputation as a source of high-quality products, services and expertise; secondly, to promote the effective use of English in trade, social development and education; thirdly, to improve access to British information and resources; and fourthly, to increase awareness of British education and training and the opportunities that they offer to China's institutions and individuals.
The future development of the British Council on mainland China and its continuance in Hong Kong will be an important tool of British diplomacy over the years immediately ahead. The British Council has adopted worthy objectives. I trust, therefore—and I say this conscious of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is sitting on the Front Bench—that future allocations of grant in aid to the British Council from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration will fully allow the council to achieve its important objectives. It can play a vital part in the wider British objective of close relations with China, to the benefit of trade and understanding between our two countries.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a few questions about the Vietnamese refugees and what is likely to be the further clarification of the process of repatriating the Vietnamese migrants who remain in Hong Kong. My understanding is that those who have been identified as refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution will not be returned to Vietnam, but will be settled in a third country. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could tell us a little about how the process of resettlement is proceeding and also about the simplified repatriation procedures, to which Vietnam has recently agreed. Speaking as an ex-Home Office Minister responsible for immigration, as well as an ex-Foreign Minister, I remember the very great problems of the Vietnamese refugees. I know that progress is being made and I would like to hear a little more about the final resolution of the matter.
I am sure that everyone in the House would agree that the unsolved riddle for China is whether the move towards the free market, a market economy and regional independence can, in the long run, be compatible with the continuing sovereignty of the Chinese Communist party. That issue is unresolved. As the succession in Beijing fully takes over from Deng Xiaoping—and I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old
1020
Bexley and Sidcup said on that subject—the solution to the riddle will become clear. However, it is obviously a matter of concern to Hong Kong.
In the years when I had the job now held by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I was responsible, under Geoffrey Howe—now Lord Howe—for Hong Kong during 1985 to 1987, very soon after the joint agreement had been signed, and when convergence was all the fashion. We talked all the time about convergence, about through trains and about trains that would go over the 1997 junction without too much of a jolt. Those phrases, for reasons that have already been stated this afternoon, have become less fashionable. I regret that.
The Chinese ambassador, Mr. Ma, when speaking to us frankly yesterday afternoon, made the point that the Chinese were seeking co-operation, not confrontation. I was reminded of the old Chinese proverb, "You can't clap with a single hand." Co-operation is clearly in the interests of the three parties—the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. We all have so much to respect, appreciate and learn from each other, but it is not a one-sided business. The treaties that ceded Hong Kong, Kowloon and the new territories to the United Kingdom have often been described as an historic humiliation for China. Surely great countries have the capacity to put historic humiliation behind them and not let the disasters of the past govern their future actions and opinions. Britain did just that in relation to the Boer war; the United States had to do it with Pearl harbour and Vietnam; and France had to do it with the events of 1940.
China is a great country and it will become yet greater. It can afford to put the humiliation that Hong Kong has possibly represented in the past well behind it and, from 1 July 1997 onwards, to treasure Hong Kong—there is no other word for it—as a golden nugget, as an economic miracle and as an example of extremely well-ordered and good government. One country, two systems must, by definition, be extraordinarily difficult to put into effect. After July 1997, the rest of the world will be watching to see how it is done.
The greater the success of Hong Kong as an autonomous region within China—as a special administrative region—the more the world will learn about China itself. It will come to respect a China that can absorb—fairly, with justice and with human rights—an ex-British colony, a system that is so different from the rest of China and a system that has been so astonishingly successful in its own right.
5.57 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), following the speeches of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), did much to reassure the Chinese that there is no question of our seeking any extension of British interest in Hong Kong after 1997; that there is no question of relying on any collapse of the Chinese Government, with the departure of Deng Xiaoping; and that both sides of the House seek co-operation, as the Chinese ambassador put it.
The perspective of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex of the Chinese hold on Hong Kong is not one that I really recognise. China has never regarded Hong

1021
Kong as an embarrassment; it has regarded it as unfinished business, about which it was concerned long before we were and will be concerned long after we have departed.
Not every Financial Secretary can open his budget speech with a quotation from Xunsi, a sage of the third century BC, on how to govern one's country, as happened in Hong Kong last month. Xunsi said:
"The way to make a community prosperous is to be prudent in public spending, to improve the well-being of the people, and"—
yes—
"to maintain good reserves."
I doubt whether we had a currency, let alone an economic policy, in the third century BC. There were other ancient civilisations, but no others have survived to form within one nation a population of 1.2 billion—more than one fifth of the world's population.
China sometimes complains, and with some justice, that other countries do not understand the complexities of governing such a country. We must, of course, continue to express our concerns about human rights, but if one puts together the whole of Europe and the United States of America and asks what civil rights abuses occur there today, if one compares the time scales over which political and social traditions that are still alive have accumulated or if one asks what communication problems exist in the European Union or the Federal Government of the United States, one moves only part way towards a comparison with the problems facing the Chinese Government, who have learnt so many lessons from their past and who are still learning, as we all are.
If one considers the strength of the efforts to tackle those problems in China, it is less easy to criticise. Justifiable concern exists about the environment. Yes, China is increasing coal production by 40 million tonnes annually, which will increase carbon dioxide, but the developed nations account for only 20 per cent. of the world's population yet consume 80 per cent. of the world's resources.
Where developing countries can act for the future of the world community is on population. China's population is still increasing, but its fierce one-child family planning policy has reduced the size of its population growth by some 300 million in the past 20 years. China's population is smaller than it would otherwise have been by a number equal to the population of the United States and Britain combined.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, in production and trade China is moving extremely fast. In the past five years, output has been increasing in the high-tech, development zones in different parts of China not at 9 to 11 per cent., as has GDP, but at 25 to 30 per cent. per annum. Those developments are spreading further west within China.
The concern is not whether China is growing fast enough but whether it is growing at a pace that it cannot sustain and that will inevitably lead to recession. The problem of economic management, which even medium-sized countries such as Britain find difficult enough, is compounded by the sheer size and diversity of the Chinese economy, the vigorous entrepreneurship of Chinese business people, the number of enterprising provincial and city governments and the increasingly open economy.
1022
Like other Governments, the Chinese Government must be concerned about the dangers of inflation and the massive social problems of millions of unemployed young people moving around China without homes, jobs or prospects. In China, the problems are simply larger. The astonishing feature of the development debate in the past 30 years is that we are now so concerned with the problems of success as China moves increasingly into world trade and the world community generally.
The starting point must therefore be that bilateral and international relations with China have a broad base and are of the highest importance. In world trade, in international investment, as permanent members of the Security Council, on security issues and in education and research exchanges it is important that Britain and China work together. It is therefore encouraging to reflect that practical relations with China are improving—I do not think that Ambassador Ma would disagree. That only leads us to ask why they have not been better in the past. The answer is simply because of the differences on transitional issues in the restoration of Hong Kong to China in 1997, in what is now less than the proverbial 800 days.
The biggest issue has been the basis for the 1995 elections to the Legislative Council. The decisions have been taken—they are past. The elections are about to take place and will be vigorously fought by parties of all hues. Those parties have become successfully established in Hong Kong. It is best to put those decisions behind us as we look forward to the important tasks that remain in securing a smooth transition.
There is no need to remind people in China or Hong Kong of what the differences have been, but we need to remind ourselves of them in the House, as we face the inevitability of an election and the strong possibility of a change of Government in the United Kingdom before 30 June 1997.
The practical reality is that the Prime Minister has said that he will seek to take this Parliament to its full term. A Labour Government entering office in the last few months before the handover of Hong Kong would not be able or willing to make any drastic changes in any arrangements for which the UK still remained responsible. I say that they would not be willing, and that would be so if by some happy circumstance a general election were to be held tomorrow.
Let me explain why, and I shall speak frankly. The Labour party has no political interest in saving the face of the Governor, Chris Patten, when he returns to Britain in 1997. He may return to Westminster politics, where in the likely state of the Tory party he may feel that he has a job to do. We have no interest in facilitating that job. Our primary interest and duty is in seeking the well-being and interests of the people of Hong Kong. To be fair, that interest has been shared by Chris Patten in what he has attempted to do in Hong Kong.
Labour Members are asked, and ask themselves, why Britain has suddenly become so concerned about elections in Hong Kong on the brink of handing it over when we managed without democracy for most of the 150 years of our exercise of sovereignty. This is the point at which the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex might feel that I take a different view of Hong Kong's past.
There were inglorious and, in modern terms, shameful circumstances in the original establishment of Hong Kong as a British colony in the opium war, in which Britain

1023
fought to defend the rights of British drug dealers massively to corrupt the people of China with their opium cargoes. In the years since, however, much has been done in Hong Kong to atone for those deeds. Most of it has been done by the Chinese people but, under the umbrella provided by British rule, with the help of countless teachers, doctors, nurses, magistrates, missionaries, journalists, civil servants and, yes, traders, industrialists and bankers from this country and from all over the world. A fair share of adventurers, characters and rogues exist among them, but the result, as the world has seen and as I have known it before and since the war, is nothing of which we need be ashamed.
In the Easter Adjournment debate on 11 April 1963 I secured the first debate on Hong Kong in the House of Commons since the war. Those were the days of decolonisation, and naturally the question came to mind with regard to Hong Kong. The judgment in Hong Kong at that time was that any election would become a cockpit for a bloody fight between the KMT—the nationalists, based in Taiwan—and the Chinese Communist party, just across the border.
There were good reasons for that judgment. It was acknowledged that if at any time China wished to resume the exercise of sovereignty in Hong Kong, the people's army could just walk across the border and would be in Government House in a few days. China chose not to intervene, then or since.
As everybody has said, Hong Kong is now the most prosperous part of China, with an average income higher than in the United Kingdom and a gross domestic product accounting for 25 per cent. of China's as a whole, although Hong Kong contains only 0.5 per cent. of China's population. Furthermore, and most important, Hong Kong is a free society.
In my view, there were opportunities in the 1970s and early 1980s when it would have been to the advantage of the people of Hong Kong to introduce direct elections for the legislature, and democratic government. I said so at the time both in Hong Kong and in the House.
It was said that there was no demand for such democratic government in Hong Kong, so I argued for and encouraged the development of embryonic political parties that could express that demand, believing it to be necessary to secure the foundation of a prosperous, free and just society, whatever the future sovereignty of Hong Kong might be.
By 1984, when it was getting very late, I was disappointed that the joint declaration did not go further and faster towards direct elections and democracy—and I said so, as did some of my hon. Friends. Lord Healey, who was then the shadow Foreign Secretary, simply supported Lord Howe, who was then Foreign Secretary. Nevertheless, to be fair, the joint declaration and the Basic Law are remarkable documents, and our duty now is to exercise what influence we have to ensure that they are honoured and fulfilled, to create the conditions in which our aim can be secured.
I apologise to the people in Hong Kong, who seem to be listening to a broadcast of the debate, because they need no reminding of the history, but the circumstances of Hong Kong and its history are less well known to some of my newer hon. Friends, who are busy in their constituencies winning local elections, and who are as
1024
keen as I am to secure orders from China for engineering firms in our constituencies. Those orders are coming through, and will continue to increase.
A question faced the Opposition when the Chris Patten whom we knew so well appeared as a somewhat belated knight in shining armour in Hong Kong, seeking ingeniously to squeeze the last ounce of democracy out of the arrangements that he found had already been made there, even at the risk of upsetting Chinese friends in Beijing. I was in Shanghai at the time, and I must confess that my reaction was to cheer.
I do not want to irritate Chinese friends in Beijing by speculating about what developments there may be in the government of China. I agree with all that has been said about the unlikelihood of any major disturbance or change after the departure of Deng Xiaoping. Just as China has left us to be responsible for Hong Kong until 30 June 1997, the Chinese will be responsible after that date, and there is nothing that we can or should do to interfere.
The changes in China in recent years have been quite remarkable. The Chinese Government have been skilful in managing the transition to a market economy, and there have been many developments in political and social policies too. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was right to attribute much of that to the institutions and to the commitment to the idea of China throughout the population, but another important influence has been the sheer drive and ingenuity, and the skills, of the people of China, where the tradition of entrepreneurship is very different from that within the former Soviet Union.
In the fullness of time there may be things for both Britain and China to excuse in their past relationships, as they build policies for the future, but I believe that, in circumstances that are becoming better, we should persist in the path that has been set until 30 June 1997.
There are outstanding issues, but I hope and believe that the political judgment and statesmanship on both sides will reach a resolution. Those issues have been enumerated: the setting up of a Court of Final Appeal, airport financing, the adaptation of local laws, the completion of civil rights laws and institutions—including, I hope, a human rights commission—an access to information Bill and an independent legal aid department.
Those are all consistent with the Basic Law; indeed, they are necessary and appropriate for its implementation. The go-ahead for container terminal 9 will certainly greatly help to consolidate vital international confidence. I trust that civil servants will co-operate fully with the preparatory committee when it is set up, and that the Governor will see his way to relax the arrangements for working with the preliminary working committee meanwhile.
The joint declaration and the Basic Law enshrine the principle of "one country, two systems". It would increase the confidence of the people in Hong Kong and of the international community in that principle if the Chinese Communist party made it clear that it will not operate in Hong Kong as it does within the rest of China.
The arrangements announced by the Financial Secretary for informing and then involving the Chinese Government in the budgetary process should be used to the full on both sides, because that, perhaps, is the most vital arrangement for securing a smooth transition.

1025
It is a remarkable provision of the Basic Law that article 106 says that the Hong Kong special administrative region shall use its revenues exclusively for its own purposes, and they shall not be handed over to the central People's Government. Furthermore, the central People's Government shall not levy taxes in the Hong Kong special administrative region. Article 110 says that the Government of the Hong Kong SAR shall, on their own, formulate their monetary and fiscal policies. The Chinese statement in annexe I of the joint declaration requires the Hong Kong SAR to report its budgets and final accounts to the central People's Government—but simply for the record. That is rather as if the City of London were exempt from paying any taxes to the Treasury for the next 50 years.
Great political skill and restraint will be needed on both sides if those articles are to be honoured fully. A condition is that honouring them must be seen to be in the best interests of China as a whole, because Hong Kong's contribution to China will be greater in that way than it could be under any other arrangement.
One major contribution that Hong Kong can make is to act as a window on the world, not only in trade and finance but in education, research, technology, health services, social services and other ways. I can give an example that I have discussed with many people in Hong Kong. Universities in Hong Kong will be fully stretched in providing for undergraduates, mainly from Hong Kong, but one or more of them are capable of becoming national' institutions within China, complementing the roles of such great universities as Beijing, Xinghua, Fudan and others, drawing and contributing graduate students from all over China and providing China with a means of having highly trained people in business, technology, science, humanities, law and so on, who are wholly at home in a climate that can rival that of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Berkeley, Stanford and our own universities in Europe. It would be a wise investment for Hong Kong if it were fully to contribute to such development in China.
I should like to conclude with the piece of rhetoric with which I concluded my speech in the 1963 debate and which was not bad for a young man.
"I would ask whether we see Hong Kong like the string of crackers with which our Chinese friends so delight to welcome us, flashing and banging and then leaving the deepened stillness of a tropical night; or whether we see Hong Kong like a seed which will grow into a tree which the children and the children's children of all those millions in China and in Hong Kong will see, and seeing, give thanks for the labour, the wisdom and the piety of their ancestors."—[Official Report, 11 April 1963; Vol. 675, c. 1517.]
6.20 pm
Mr. David Howell: This is a welcome opportunity, not only to return to the issue of Hong Kong, as is our proper duty in this House, but to look at Hong Kong matters in the broader context of our relations with China and, indeed, our relations with the whole Asia Pacific region. It is also a welcome event from the point of view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs because it gives the House an opportunity to comment on its report on Britain's relations with China and Hong Kong, which we published well over a year ago. Some of the detail may be out of date, but its main thrust and considerations are still very apposite.
1026
I shall explain, because some may have forgotten as it was published some time ago, that the report did not only address the narrow issue of Hong Kong or the bilateral issue of relations with China. We were trying—indeed, it was the purpose behind the report—to look a little further ahead, especially beyond 1997 and, as it were, beyond the obvious difficulties and problems that we want to overcome in our relations with Bejiing over Hong Kong, to the enormous possibilities of establishing very much closer ties of every kind, not only commercial and financial, but of all sorts, with that giant awakening nation which has 23 per cent. of the world's population. That was our aim.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) take a swipe at the report. I can just about endure that, but I must say that he was being—very uncharacteristically—a little unfair in his assessment of what we were trying to say. If he reads the report, he will find in almost every page, right from the beginning, our insistence that we were looking for positive ways in which to sew together our relations with that great nation. We have reflected in almost every page the Committee's view—I think that it is a wider view—of the huge respect that we have for China and how it is coping. How that vast nation is able to cope with immensely rapid economic change remains to western minds a miracle of construction. That was entirely our view.
Perhaps what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did not like was that we approached the subject—again, we see this as our duty to the House—in a fairly candid way. We do not see it as our duty to approach such matters with buckets of whitewash or to be starry-eyed or uncritical about even our closest friends. In considering all the problems—we certainly marvelled at all the aspects of modern China and at how the People's Republic of China was tackling problems—it would have been wrong to brush them aside and not be frank and open as a parliamentary Committee should properly be. I am sorry if that was misunderstood by my right hon. Friend and perhaps by other people around the world, but that was our approach and I make no apology whatever for it. It was, and remains, an attempt to be utterly constructive about how, beyond 1997, we view our relations with that vast country.
There was an even bigger thought behind that aim which today has even more validity as every month goes by: our belief—it is certainly mine—that the rise of Asian economic power will be followed and is already being followed by the rise of Asian political power. That vast shift of power to the Asia Pacific region—a shift in the centre of gravity of the whole planet—will be the most compelling theme of our politics, our policies and, indeed, almost our ways of life over the next 10 and 20 years.
In preparing our report, we saw, as anyone may see now, some amazing figures. They are not just fancy forecasts, projecting things as though everything will go smoothly in Asia, which obviously it will not, but facts now or only a little way ahead indicating the true power and potential of that region. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who speaks with authority, mentioned some of those facts, as have many hon. Members.
I am very struck by one of the European Commission's documents, which says that by 2000—only 54 months ahead—there will be more than 400 million people in the

1027
Asia Pacific region with disposable incomes higher than the average for the European Union. That means that even though there will still be much poverty, in terms of disposable income and purchasing power it will be a market bigger than the entire European Union. That is one of many figures that we need to keep in mind when thinking about the vast importance of developing a good relationship with the region in every way.
We need also to think beyond economics. It is not only a question of higher living standards. Income per head in Hong Kong is higher than in the United Kingdom. It is also higher in Singapore and about the same in Taiwan. I should think that there are many areas of other parts of Asia and the Indian subcontinent where living standards are already high. However, we must consider not only living standards, but the staggering increase in education standards.
From the schools of Hong Kong and Taiwan and perhaps even from schools in parts of China—certainly, from schools in parts of the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere in south-east Asia—a generation of children are emerging who are better educated and equipped than many of our own children to deal with the information age and the high-technology future. So we must not only consider superior living standards but superior education standards.
It may even be, although this is a more tricky statement, to which there are so many exceptions that it could be shot down, that we shall have to look at the higher moral standards being pursued, at least in terms of the Confucian commitment to the family and the family bond and the concepts of personal obligation and family duty, which seem to be strong in many Asian communities—a lot stronger than in the west, where we preach such values but have ceased to practise them quite as well as we should.
Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend made a point about education of quite awesome importance for the future. Is that not underpinned by the fact that in the Republic of China and in Taiwan the constitution requires at least 15 per cent. of all public expenditure to be spent on education? That is the major reason why in Taiwan, and elsewhere in the region as my right hon. Friend says, there is such an enormous and emerging educated class.
Mr. Howell: That is a very good example of the point that I was trying to make. I shall reinforce it with two more statistics. I do not want to bore the House with endless figures which, again, are facts today and not futurology predictions, but the Asia Pacific region, and within it the huge China economic region, now produces a quarter of all our income from overseas investments. It is a very large amount and it may even be higher than the latest figure that I have, which is for last year. It takes about a fifth of our exports. Again, I suspect that that figure is rising.
Even more significantly, the region is generating the capital growth of the planet. Out of the fantastic savings of those peoples, who are committed to saving and are not consumption-minded, come the capital resources that are financing the planet's growth. A striking fact is that Japan produces 56 per cent. of the entire net savings of the world. I suspect that Taiwan produces a further 4 or
1028
5 per cent., Hong Kong produces savings of the same order, and China is already generating large savings which are being fed into the international financial markets.
He who saves the money calls the tune, and the tune of the future will increasingly be dictated by those who are mobilising those colossal savings. In this debate, the theme has been what we feel should happen on the other side of the planet, but we should note that those huge capital flows are coming to Europe and especially to the United Kingdom. Of Taiwanese investment into Europe, 80 per cent. comes to the United Kingdom. Japan's direct investment in the UK is equal to its investment in the rest of the European Union. I suspect that increasing amounts of money are also beginning to flow in from Taiwan, Malaysia and the People's Republic of China, although we do not immediately see them labelled. They are the sources of investment of the future, so as a nation we would be mad not to realise that our interests lie in good and ever stronger relations with all those nations, but especially with China.
The issue at the forefront of our relations with China, and which has understandably been the subject of most comments today because it blocks our longer-term vision, is Hong Kong and how we can do the right thing and fulfil our duty from Hong Kong's point of view. Some of our Chinese friends find it difficult to grasp the concept that we are pursuing our duty and what we believe to be right rather than our own interests.
We must also pursue our own interests, however, and not be too high-minded or starry-eyed. We must ensure that our good relations with Hong Kong and the huge investment and political effort that we have put into fulfilling our duty there can in turn benefit this nation so that we do not come out a lap behind those who could bypass Hong Kong's political problems and develop their relations directly with Beijing. It would be a great disappointment if the Anglo-Hong Kong relationship, which was to be the one to provide us with a head start against other European nations in investment in the awakening China and parts of Asia—including north-east Asia, which has hardly been mentioned—turned out to be more of a handicap than a benefit. In one's gloomier moments, when listening to the exchange of vituperative slogans, one sometimes feels that that may be so, but that is an unnecessarily gloomy view and it need not be so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has had huge experience of talking to Chinese leaders who, although they are inclined to say that the Hong Kong problem could damage relations with Britain, are also inclined to say that in general it probably will not. I declare an interest as a director of Trafalgar House, which is undertaking huge infrastructure investments in China. In my experience, the Hong Kong problem has not made much difference. Let us hope that that is the reality and what will prevail despite some of the more chilling statements.
How do we ensure that Hong Kong is a plus for us and also for the people of Hong Kong? The report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considers all the propositions and deals with whether the Patten proposals for electoral law reform contradicted the Basic Law. It came to the conclusion—not casually, but after painstaking analysis—that they did not, that they were within the spirit of the Basic Law, that it was right, and that that law and the joint declaration say that Britain has responsibility for what goes on in the territory of Hong

1029
Kong until 1 July 1997. The Basic Law and the joint declaration require the Chinese authorities to co-operate with us—co-operation has been mentioned—to ensure that the best interests of Hong Kong are served.
I do not say that as a Committee—or, indeed, personally—we thought that every step taken by the Hong Kong Administration has been right. It is possible, especially with the wonderful aid of hindsight, to criticise and to say that things have gone wrong. The Select Committee heard some trenchant criticisms from Sir Percy Cradock and the like. Nevertheless, we are where we are and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that it is essential that we stand firm to our commitment to democratic electoral practices and that we do not begin to say that we think that the situation is hopeless, time is against us, the clock is ticking away and we must make all sorts of concessions on democratic rights and duties and the necessary ingredients of what we believe to be a separate system—a free economic system and a free society.
Undoubtedly, the mood in Beijing is difficult and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will not criticise me for saying so. An end-of-dynasty mentality is prevailing. Some people in Beijing, whose words I follow closely, are saying things with greater hardness and harshness than they were some years ago. There is a mood that there must be no concessions and no understanding, and that the PRC will do certain things the moment it takes over and that will be that. We shall lose respect, and the people of Hong Kong will probably lose out, if we give in to or tire in the face of that attitude. We have to be absolutely firm about where we are now and I hope that we shall be. The report of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee takes that line. I do not think that we should apologise for it and I am glad to hear that view reinforced by both Front-Bench spokesmen.
The report was certainly not uncritical of certain more detailed matters of Hong Kong policy. We return time and again to the issue of the 52 or 53 widows of ex-service men. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of my right hon. Friends and of the Government to those people. Why they should not just be given nationality I cannot fully understand.
On the non-ethnic Chinese—
Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman should make his representations at the door of the Home Office, not the Foreign Office.
Mr. Howell: I stand corrected if I have got the wrong Department. I hope that my right hon. Friends, whatever their Department, will look into the matter once again. Indeed, I visited the Home Office with the late Lord Bonham-Carter and other distinguished people, including Baroness Dunn, to plead the case once—though yet again without success, I fear. That remains a niggling problem and I hope that my right hon. Friends will not keep brushing it away, but will re-examine it to find out whether they can at least show some movement.
People with far more expertise have dealt with the Court of Final Appeal. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, the matter is related to the role of the Chinese Communist party. What role will it play after 1997 and what assurances can we get that it will not
1030
play the same sort of political role that it plays in the rest of mainland China? We must watch that issue closely, among many others.
The freedom of the press is another issue that we must watch closely. Every day, there is evidence of the shadows closing in on such freedom in Hong Kong. We shall have to combine the task of being a proper monitor and fulfilling our duties to Hong Kong with our wish not to attack or undermine the People's Republic of China—I must stress the latter time and again—but to recognise all its problems, support it and reinforce its efforts to open out and move towards the future.
Although it is a year since our report appeared, the need to look at the post—1997 priorities has been left in the air. It is not too soon to begin to decide on them. First, we should work extremely hard to get and maintain good relations with Beijing, despite the rancour and the difficulties over Hong Kong. We should follow through the range of ideas in our report for sewing together informal relations at a parliamentary, cultural and educational level.
Secondly, we must solve the Hong Kong problem—ideally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, through dialogue. That will be difficult if the other side will not talk or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, the tennis ball is simply not returned. None the less, we must keep working at those talks and never let up.
Thirdly, we must recognise our commercial interests in the region, particularly in relation to Taiwan. We accept, of course, the "One China" policy. Taiwan is not a political entity, but it is a mighty one commercially. It has made great investments in Britain and we should be at least as sensitive as our competitors and neighbours in western Europe in our dealings with it. There are no fewer than 9,000 not 8,000—Taiwanese students here, which is a colossal number. Taiwan has tremendous good will to our country and, given our difficulties with Beijing, we must be careful not to compensate too much the other way by being less than friendly to it. I refer in particular to the way in which we handle visa applications from Taiwan. Apparently we are the only country which requires the Taiwanese to have a separate piece of paper outside their passport as a visa. I cannot see that that is correct, but apparently it is deemed necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.
Fourthly, our general foreign policy stance should be less Euro-centric. That does not meant that we should not get our relations with the European Union absolutely right, but we must remember that it represents a lesser part of world trade because more than half our overseas receipts, if one includes visibles and invisibles, come from outside Europe.
Finally, we have lessons for ourselves, our policies and politics to draw from the amazing rise of power and influence in Asia. Although we should consider its faults, as we have done in the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, we should also consider its fantastic virtues. Countries in Asia deliver personal security through their family bonds, which we seem unable to provide through universal benefit provision and an elaborate system of social security. Perhaps we could learn a lesson from that. If we want to succeed and to be as rich and as socially cohesive as those countries, we should investigate other ways of delivering security.

1031
We should consider how the parents of the poorest people in Asia devote their entire lives to the schooling of their children, which goes far beyond their states' provision for schooling. Those parents are turning out a new and brilliant generation of young Asians. We should also note how inter-generational respect is so important in parts of the Asian world—something on which I get keener and keener as time goes by. Asian countries have realised that the elderly are not a separate, dependent group, but an integral part of a balanced society. When I visited Japan recently I was fascinated to see how its aging society is not considered a problem, but a gigantic resource which will increase the country's growth, balance and dynamism. I am all for seeing things that way in the European Community as well, instead of granny being pushed into a home.
The way in which Asian countries handle the problem of employment and jobs is, in some ways, superior to our approach. Everyone has a role, dignity and status even if, in a ruthless, competitive world, such people would be declared redundant and considered an unnecessary cost on the books. A quite different approach from that is taken in many parts of Asia, including even super-efficient Hong Kong. After several hundred years of assuming that European values are always the best, we must recognise that in many cases the superior values of Asia are delivering superior prosperity, economic performance and quality of life. That is a sobering thought for those who have gone round preaching the wonders of western philosophy for 300 years.
I urge upon right hon. and hon. Members, and all those who think about the great power shift in China and Asia, some humility. We must realise that the issue now is not westernisation, which has stirred the world, including Asia, for the past 100 years, but perhaps easternisation—the influence of Asia's fantastic performance on our more stagnant societies.
6.44 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: It is important that we have the opportunity to comment not only on the Select Committee report, which was published in March 1994, but on the Government's response to it, published in July 1994. It is regrettable that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss that report, especially since the Select Committee made a number of recommendations—which, unfortunately, the Government have chosen not to adopt. I shall limit my remarks to the Committee's recommendations on Hong Kong, although all hon. Members should endorse what the Chairman of the Committee and other colleagues have said about Taiwan.
The Select Committee made a number of recommendations about human rights in Hong Kong. It recommended, for example, that a human rights commission should be established, and that vigorous steps should be taken to press the Chinese Government to ratify the United Nations convention on human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
The joint declaration made it clear that those agreements would remain applicable to Hong Kong, but those international covenants have not yet been ratified
1032
by China—it appears that it has no intention of doing so. If that is still the case in July 1997, where will that leave Hong Kong?
The Government have not been forthcoming either about the discussions in the Joint Liaison Group, or about the reality for Hong Kong in 1997. I understand that the head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Lu Ping, visited Hong Kong in May last year. He said that Beijing was not obliged to make reports to the UN Commission on Human Rights after 1997, which is a cause for concern. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say what will happen to human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. In recent months, what assurances, undertakings or even discussions and disagreements have been forthcoming from China?
Time is running out, and we need some clarification. It is not acceptable for us simply to say, as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) seemed to suggest, that human rights do not matter, so long as we get the money and achieve economic growth. I find that attitude deplorable. Human rights are a universal right—the UN convention on human rights is a universal declaration. One cannot argue that three quarters of the world's population should have human rights, but that that principle does not extend and does not matter to those who happen to be Chinese.
If "one country, two systems" is to mean anything now, for people in Hong Kong at least, it does not mean one country with a developing capitalist system in China and an already established capitalist economic system in Hong Kong. It does not mean two systems in that sense. It now means the preservation of the legal, judicial, press, free trade union and democratic, or increasingly democratic, political system of Hong Kong.
In those circumstances, it is essential that we have some assurances that, come 1997, "one country, two systems", and the 50 years after, will not shortly lead to the snuffing out of the independence of the judiciary or of people's rights to express their political opinions openly.
In Peking, people continue to speak about the leading role of the Communist party. They continue to speak, in a way, of a party state. It may be a state in which almost everything goes, but the very week in late 1993 when the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, visited China, we were told that a decree had been introduced to ban satellite receiver dishes.
That is absurd, because part of the economic development in the south of China was based on the fact that, on television, companies were advertising products that were produced in Hong Kong or in the south of China. Nevertheless, that mentality continued to exist at that time, and I suspect that it persists in some quarters now. We need to know the answer to the question, what will that mean for the people of Hong Kong after 1997?
The Select Committee made several recommendations that I have no time to discuss, but it is important to mention a few issues. Citizenship and nationality have been mentioned, and a reply of sorts was given by the Foreign Secretary when I intervened earlier on the subject. The issue of the widows of service men must be tackled. Those few people deserve better treatment than the vague references that we currently receive from the Government.
We need to consider the ethnic minorities of Indian origin and other ethnic minorities living in Hong Kong. Their position is also unclear. It appears that the Chinese

1033
Government's attitude is that everyone who lives in Hong Kong after 1997 will be given Chinese nationality, and they will not recognise any other nationality for people living there.
Press reports that I have read, published as recently as earlier this week, say that people who will not be classified as Chinese nationals include non-ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong, ethnic Chinese who were born or have settled in foreign countries, and stateless people. In those circumstances, it appears that there will be a problem for people who are somehow left by us without the possibility of being able to extricate themselves from that position.
Will the Minister, in his reply, specifically discuss the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
"We remain of the view expressed by the then Committee in 1989, that Britain has a duty to give non-Chinese ethnic minority residents of Hong Kong full British citizenship. If the Government continues to refuse to do this, we recommend that the Government state publicly that if this group encounter discrimination in the new Special Administrative Region, whether or not they face explicit pressure to leave, they will be given every help to enter Britain and acquire British nationality"?
I know that statements were made by the Home Office last year that moved a little way in that direction, but we should go further and clarify what will happen for those several thousand people who may be left in an uncertain position in two years' time.
Obviously, the position regarding Britain and China has. changed since the Select Committee produced its report. Progress has been made with democratic changes, although China says that it will not abide by them in future. The Governor appears to have receded into the background, and other people are playing a more prominent role in Hong Kong politics than they were.
We must recognise that Britain continues to have responsibility, formally, legally, for the next two years. Although our power may be much less than it appears on paper, because the transformation of Hong Kong is already taking place—Chinese influence and control grows inexorably day by day—nevertheless, in international law, and in terms of the joint declaration, Members of the House and our Government continue to have a responsibility.
Because of our history and the joint declaration, we should express our worries even after 1997. If there is any suggestion of Chinese Government pressure, or of the agreements and promises that have been made being abrogated, Members of the House have a duty to speak out loudly and clearly in defence of human rights, trade union rights and the rights of free speech and association in Hong Kong.
6.55 pm
Mr. David Mellor: I too shall be brief—high-mindedly, because it is about time that Members other than Privy Councillors were heard from the Conservative Benches, and, less high-mindedly, because I have a pressing broadcast engagement to go to.
The debate has been useful, because it shows a pretty united front in the House about those issues. Even though the fact that the House will have held a debate on Hong Kong that has been conducted in measured and responsible tones will not be conveyed any distance outside the House by the media in the United Kingdom, I hope very much that it will be reported widely in Hong
1034
Kong. If so, it will provide some reassurance that there is a tremendous commitment in this place to discharging the final substantial responsibility of Britain's colonial past—that of handing over Hong Kong to China.
We have done everything we can to reach an agreement that, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and others have said, is fraught with difficulties. It will be a miracle if that agreement is adhered to, and we have done everything in our power to prepare the people of Hong Kong for the transition, and to negotiate with the Government of China and to internationalise the issue in a way that gives them some prospect of a happy outcome.
My association, registered in the Register of Members' Interests, with the Oriental Press Group, the largest newspaper group in Hong Kong, has given me the opportunity to visit Hong Kong several times recently.
One cannot go to Hong Kong without being enormously impressed by the extraordinary energy of the place. To me, one of the great wonders of the world is the experience of looking down from the Peak on the incredible creation that Hong Kong is. The fact that it has been able to turn itself into the eighth largest trading nation in the world is the type of formidable achievement that makes me deeply regret that that buoyant, dynamic, wonderful, free, civilised place must be handed back to a Government of the nature and character of the Government of China.
It is an irony that we can appreciate, but painful for the people of Hong Kong, that, while the balkanisation of Europe proceeds apace—seemingly, every half a dozen fields in the former Yugoslavia can obtain independence with the blessing of the international community—it has not been possible for self-determination to apply in Hong Kong.
It is deeply regrettable that, during an era that was characterised by a concerted and successful effort by the west against communism—the era of President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher—it was felt necessary to negotiate an arrangement with China that involved handing back Hong Kong.
I do not imagine for a moment that there was an alternative. I have been re-reading Mrs. Thatcher's memoirs on that matter. It is obvious that she sought to decouple the sovereignty issue from the other issues of the future of Hong Kong that she wished to discuss. The Chinese always asserted that sovereignty was the crucial element. The Chinese Government were not willing to be swayed, and the international community did not have the resolve to take on the Chinese Government, so Hong Kong must be handed back.
It is therefore right that, in our relationship with China, we are showing patience and forbearance, and adverting as little as is consistent with our duty to the Chinese Government's lamentable record on human rights issues, which have a fundamental bearing on the arrangements that they have negotiated in Hong Kong. We are endeavouring to keep the temperature at a level that permits constructive work. It cannot be reassuring that the Chinese Government are taking issue with the relatively limited steps towards democracy that the Governor of Hong Kong has properly taken.
It is a good debating point, but no better than that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, to ask why we have left it so long. One suspects that one reason is that the governance

1035
of Hong Kong was a matter for the civil service rather than political leadership. Having seen what Hong Kong has achieved, perhaps we should try that system here. It was inevitable that, when a politician of the front rank such as Chris Patten went to Hong Kong, he should want to make changes such as those he has advocated. The House should be proud of what the Governor has achieved.
One of the aspects that particularly strikes me when I go to Hong Kong and watch the television and read the newspapers is the extraordinary bond of affection that has grown up between the Governor and the people of Hong Kong. Whatever cavilling there may be by business men and one or two senior politicians in the House, whose enthusiasm for China has overwhelmed their judgment about the nature and character of the Chinese Government, it is clear that Chris Patten has done what every decent, humane and statesmanlike Member of the House would do if placed in that position.
I hope that the Governor will have trodden the fine line and avoided greatly provoking the Chinese Government, to whom almost anything is provocative. We cannot all live in a world where it is accepted as reasonable when the Dalai Lama is told that he can return to Tibet provided he does not do anything effective to alleviate the suffering of the people there.
That cannot be the basis for our relations with the Government of China. We must not conduct our relations with the Government of China from our knees—certainly not from our bellies. We must show the same respect for our institutions and our beliefs in freedom and democracy as they have in theirs. Chris Patten has done as good a job as possible.
What of the future? I believe, for a range of reasons, that it will be a miracle if the one country, two systems is able to proceed. First, it is not the nature of the Chinese Government to accept dissent. As I know only too well, as I work with one of the leading newspaper companies in Hong Kong, it is part of the nature of Hong Kong to dissent. Anyone who has been the victim of a press conference in Hong Kong knows only too well that, if the press are robust in this country, they are doubly so in Hong Kong.
The Government of China as at present constituted will find it enormously difficult to tolerate that. It will require a level of patience that they were not prepared to share with their own students in Tiananmen square. It will be a miracle if the Government survive in their present form; we must all hope that they do not. They will be required to behave in a way in which they have never been able to behave before.
I wonder whether those of us who are enthusiastic about investing in China and who take a joy in the growth of the Chinese economy—there are 1.25 billion people, and growth is soaring—realise what the sleeping giant is capable of once we finally wake it from its slumbers.
We applaud the developments of an economy where wage rates are 1 per cent. of those prevailing in the European Community, while at the same time trying to harden yet further the arteries of the European economic system with devices such as the social chapter. One wonders what sort of world we will find in 50 years' time,
1036
if, as Deng Xiaoping suggested, 50 years after the agreement with Hong Kong, China should be a full and equal member among the ranks of developed nations.
How do we ensure that the Chinese Government behave responsibly? I suspect that the threat will come not so much from direct Chinese Government intervention to break the arrangements, as from the fact that the Chinese Government do not control much outside some of the central areas of China. A great deal depends on individual regional governments, individual powerful elements in the state and powerful individuals.
The danger for Hong Kong is corruption. The Chinese Administration are corrupt and unwieldy. The great thing about the Government of Hong Kong is that, for the most part, they run an efficient, effective society and banish those arrangements to the sidelines as a result of the vigilance of the law and order services.
I suspect that there are no easy solutions. We can internationalise the matter and try to ensure that China, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, is unable to get away without signing a key United Nations convention. It is hard to think of a more fundamental United Nations convention than that pertaining to human rights. The eyes of the world community, not just those of Britain, focus on Hong Kong and the solemn obligations that the Chinese Government entered into when they signed the arrangements.
I did not intend to say much about press freedom in Hong Kong, but the subject has arisen a number of times. There is something in the point made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—I hope that I got his constituency right—
Sir David Steel indicated assent.
Mr. Mellor: Good—that is a start.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not leave rules that could be used oppressively by the Chinese. During my most recent visit to Hong Kong, it came as an unpleasant surprise to me to find that a shadowy tribunal exists, comprising people whose names are not published. It sits in judgment on newspapers and is able to fine them, without a hearing, for producing indecent material.
People will, I hope, be as dismayed as I was to find that one of the publications of the Oriental Press Group, the English language newspaper the Eastern Express, published a front-page picture of a young Chinese child who had been maimed in a street accident. The picture was an affecting one, of the badly scarred child clutching its mother. The aim was to launch an appeal to raise money, so that the child could have some operations to improve its face by plastic surgery and to remedy some of the other injuries. The tribunal fined the Eastern Express $HK5,000 for publishing an indecent photograph.
It is hardly an ornament to the Hong Kong Administration, of whom I otherwise warmly approve and applaud, that such mechanisms should exist. I do not think that it is an ornament to any society to think that a picture of a seriously handicapped child is indecent. Such an attitude takes us back to the Victorian age, when we used to lock away such people in asylums in the depths of the countryside so that no one was forced to gaze on them. We shall need to look carefully at one or two such aspects.
Overall, I suspect that the resilience and vigour of the people of Hong Kong will sustain them. As a child, the only things I knew of Hong Kong were the ghastly little

1037
plastic nick-nacks which came out of Christmas crackers, and the nastier T-shirts at the nastier end of Woolworth counters, both of which always had written on them, "Made in Hong Kong". Within that time, while our economy has, in relative terms, stood still, Hong Kong's has surged away.
Not only does Hong Kong now have one of the most dynamic economies in the world, but it is one of the most pleasant and attractive places to visit, with high-quality hotels, wonderful service in shops and marvellous public transport. Without the slightly repressive edge of the Lee Kuan Yew regime, the Hong Kong regime has managed to persuade people not to drop litter, and to behave in a civilised way—something from which all of us in this country can learn.
People who have been able to attain those achievements in such a short time can surely survive what is to come when shorn of democratic institutions. That is not to deny that it is a cruel fate for Hong Kong when nations infinitely less capable of managing in the world are accepted as free and independent members of the world's community, while the extraordinary group of people in Hong Kong must be handed back to the state of China. No one should assume—I am sure that no one in the House does—that the passage ahead will be easy or clear. It will not.
7.9 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: The debate so far has been wide-ranging and absolutely fascinating. From 1980 until I entered the House last year, I visited Hong Kong more times than I care to remember. Like everyone else, I found it a most exhilarating and exciting place to visit. I am sad that today's debate has attracted the presence and participation—although it has been of a very high quality—of so few Members of Parliament. If we were grains of rice, we would hardly make a teaspoonful to feed to a baby. I think that it is the equivalent of a debate on a wet Wednesday in Dudley.
The Governor of Hong Kong has not deemed the debate important enough to warrant his presence. I know that members of the Legislative Council are extremely concerned that, owing to the short notice of the debate, many have not been able to make arrangements to attend or to brief fully all Members of Parliament about the very important issues at stake.
As I said, I have visited Hong Kong many times and I have been thrilled by the dynamism and growth of the Hong Kong economy. However, we must have some sense of historic perspective. I remember reading in the history books about people returning from the Soviet Union 50 or 60 years ago and assuring people that there were yearly growth rates of 10 or 15 per cent., that jobs were being created, welfare systems were being set up and new housing was being provided. They told us that they had seen the future and that it worked.
The Foreign Secretary made the good point that our trade with Taiwan is only a little less than our total trade with the whole of China. In fact, the per capita gross domestic product of the Association of South-East Asian Nations is approximately $1,400 per year compared with more than $20,000 for the European Union. Although there are some very dynamic examples of economic growth in Asia, we should not assume that our future lies
1038
to the east and turn our backs, as some hon. Members appear to have done, on our continuing commitment to Europe.
I agreed with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). He has left the Chamber to make his broadcast; I will stay in order to listen to any further contributions that he may make to the debate later. It is very sad that we are handing over the people of Hong Kong without better preparation for the future. I expect that when 20th century diplomatic historians come to write about this period, they will deplore the hurried way in which the Prime Minister of the day, Mrs. Thatcher, blundered through the diplomacy of handing back 6 million Hong Kong people to the Chinese gulag without sufficiently safeguarding their interests. I think that history will record that as one of her greatest mistakes.
Lady Thatcher was, for some, a wonderful warrior. When it came to the Falkland Islands crisis, the Gulf war or dealing with the IRA, or—to use her own words—"the enemy within", she knew what she was doing. However, when it came to diplomacy regarding Europe, South Africa or Hong Kong, she was a disaster. One could consider her to be an expert in what might be called "chopstick" diplomacy, but she held a chopstick in each hand. Anyone who has tried to eat using that method will know that it may be wondrous to behold, but it leaves an awful mess. It is that mess that the Foreign Office has been trying to clear up ever since.
The joint declaration to which many hon. Members have referred has been replaced—as the Select Committee report makes clear—by the Basic Law, which has been agreed unanimously by the People's Congress in Beijing. In opening the debate, the Foreign Secretary spoke of parliamentary exchanges. I am all for that; I would like to meet with my opposite numbers in Beijing to talk about the 10 million Chinese people who are in forced labour camps. I would like to talk about the 100 million peasants who have been uprooted from their homes and who are exploited quite ruthlessly by Chinese and foreign companies. I would like to talk about women in China who face compulsory abortions and sterilisation or about the eugenics law, as it was originally titled. I would like to talk about the prisoners who are executed in order to provide organs for transplant to sell to rich people in the west or elsewhere in Asia. They are some of the parliamentary exchanges that I would like to have if I were confident that my opposite numbers in Beijing were elected democratically in the way that we and the members of LegCo are.
All those events are well recorded; nothing that I have mentioned is a secret. If it is embarrassing for Conservative Members to hear those truths, I put it to them that no one can afford to ignore the continuing repression of human rights when it is reduced to individual life and death and exploitation in China. We should not talk about human rights in general terms; we should look at the plight of the individual. I speak with some passion on the subject because my children are one-quarter Asian. If I have understand correctly some of the comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House, three quarters of my children's identity allows them to enjoy western human rights, but one quarter does not. I believe that every human being—no matter where he or she is born—should enjoy indivisible human rights, which must be cherished.

1039
When some of the practices that I have described were applied in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba or in Nazi Germany, Conservative Members were among the first to condemn them with immense vigour and passion. They linked whole areas of Government policy, such as trade and international politics, to attempts to stop those human rights abuses. However, because there is so much money to be made in China—Conservative Members have been open and honest in declaring their interests—at best we skate over those issues and we do not raise the individual concerns of so many Chinese people.
In the end, we do not ask the Chinese to obey our laws or to accept a western system of values; we simply ask them to respect their own laws and culture. Classic disappearances are occurring regularly in China. Chinese citizens are being seized by plain-clothes military officers and held incommunicado. That practice breaks the Chinese law, which says that families should know where family members who have been taken prisoner are being held.
We do not know the whereabouts of Wei Jing-Shen, a great human rights campaigner who founded the democracy war 15 years ago. He was imprisoned by Deng Xiaoping—who is apparently the friend of at least one hon. Member who has spoken in the debate—and released only two or three years ago. He is the Andrei Sakharov. of China. He has now been rearrested and we do not know where he is being held. We know that his assistant Tong-yi was arrested and badly beaten in prison.
We should also mention Han Dong-fang, who is the leader of the Workers Autonomous Federations in Tiananmen square. We have already discussed the citizenship and passport problems of the people of Hong Kong. Han Dong-fang is a Chinese citizen and he holds a Chinese passport, but when he left the country for medical treatment and then sought to return, he was refused admission at the railway border between the new territories and China. It is to his credit that the Hong Kong Governor, Chris Patten, protested about that.
What will be Han Dong-fang's fate after 1997? I tabled written questions to that effect last year, but as yet I have received no satisfactory reply. Han Dong-fang has been my guest on the Terrace at the House of Commons. What will hon. Members say if he is arrested after 1997? If there is a change of Government—I sincerely hope that there will be—what will my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have to say if he is Foreign Secretary?
We have an opportunity to raise some of those issues by focusing on what we can do in Hong Kong. We have 800 days, which should be long enough. It is equivalent to two parliamentary Sessions and, my goodness, we can get through some Acts of Parliament in this place in 800 days. What, then, should we do during that period? We should encourage the civil society in Hong Kong to sink deeper and deeper roots between now and July 1997.
I reinforce the importance of what hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to: freedom of information. Hong Kong is currently our only eyeglass into China. The Far East Economic Review, the Asian Wall Street Journal and other media now operating in Hong Kong provide far more information about what is happening in China than can correspondents and
1040
journalists operating in Beijing or the Chinese media operating out of China, such are the restrictions on press freedom in China.
We should also have regard to freedom of assembly. We have discussed the marvellous economic growth rate in China. Although it has been achieved by business men and entrepreneurs, it has also been achieved by workers, whose rights need to be considered in Hong Kong. They should have trade union rights to assemble, negotiate and organise. In Tiananmen square, one of the most powerful movements that linked up with the students was that of the Workers Autonomous Federations. The number of recorded strikes and of arrests of democratic trade union organisers since Tiananmen square show that the example that the Chinese communist authorities in Beijing are terrified of. is equivalent to Solidarnosc in Poland and workers movements around the world.
Last December, LegCo had before it interesting and important legislation on social and workers' rights, but Mr. Lau Chin-shek, a member of LegCo, put forward amendments taking those slightly further forward. He obviously had the support of a majority on LegCo, but the Government withdrew their own legislation. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Given Governor Patten's regular forays to Europe, the United States and all over the world to make theme speeches, albeit of great interest and learning, it is strange that he is not here tonight. [Interruption.] I hear laughter from Conservative Benches. The Select Committee report was produced more than a year ago, but we have had few debates in the House on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who is present in the Chamber, goes back some 30 years and knows that, when the House is debating Hong Kong—this may be the last full debate before July 1997—it is extraordinary that the man who is effectively the Minister responsible for that area is not present.
Governor Patten had a wonderful history teacher at his school. I know that because that history teacher happened also to be mine. Although I am several years younger than Chris Patten, I attended the same school. In our history classes, we learned about the importance of democratic development as the hope of history. The yearning for freedom is the marching song of all humanity, whether European, American, black, Asian or whatever. The Conservative party would probably place most emphasis on freedom in the economic sphere, but there should also be freedom under the rule of law.
If one country in the world has no visible rule of law, it is China. People should have freedom to travel, speak, write and read. Those freedoms were supported in the House in the 19th century and effectively in the 20th century. In my maiden speech, I paid tribute to the passionate commitment to those freedoms expressed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he stood against his party's appeasement of Nazi Germany, a record of which he can be proud.
Those freedoms remain just as important in the 21st century, but China is now the country where they are most flouted anywhere in the world. If the continuing flouting of human rights and democracy in so many spheres continues unchecked, it will cause endless problems. Governor Patten's attempts to democratise in part the election process show that he understands that. He has admitted that all that he is doing with those functional democracies, about which my hon. Friend the shadow

1041
Foreign Secretary made such fun, is to advance the electoral college in China to where it was in England in the middle of the 19th century. Despite his efforts to introduce some democracy in the legislative sphere, he remains a prisoner of Conservative philosophy. Although I support the general line of not seeking a huge party difference on this issue, it must be noted that Governor Patten, as a child of Thatcher and an appointee of the Prime Minister, cannot support in Hong Kong what is not supported in this country—legislation to pluralise the press and guarantee human rights in the workplace.
That does not relieve the House of the responsibility to argue those rights tonight. What can we do? First, I agree with those who say that we must maintain an open policy of trade, investment and contact, not just with China but with the whole of that region. Secondly, we must embrace all the Chinas in the new networks of international bodies. China should be admitted to the World Trade Organisation. The United Kingdom should increase discussion, involving Hong Kong citizens in other international bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation and other relevant United Nations agencies in which Chinese issues will be discussed. I hope that, at the forthcoming UN conference on women, to be held in Beijing later this year, we shall make a forthright denunciation of China's barbaric practices with regard to its female citizens.
Thirdly, we should support the admission of Taiwan to the United Nations on a par with that other Chinese state; Singapore, so that Taiwan can play its part in the debate and decisions on the future of all Chinese people, not just those in China and Hong Kong but those who live in many other parts of Asia and the rest of the world.
There has been much reference to one country, two systems. That was the old slogan which Deng Xiaoping developed to explain China's relationship with Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is now out of date. There is one system—authoritarian market capitalism—and at least three identifiable Chinese states: the People's Republic of China; Taiwan; and Singapore. If there is one iron certainty about China, it is that in the past 100 years, one has never seen, from one consecutive 10 or a dozen years to the next, the same outlook, approach and system being applied in China. Great changes happen as a result of either decisions from the top or pressure from below.
An aspect that nobody has mentioned—the debate is on China and Hong Kong as a whole—is China's military role. China is now developing into a major military power. It is building a deep-water fleet. It has missiles. China is selling arms all over the middle east. Its armed forces intervene in naval engagements over islands that are many hundreds of miles from the Chinese coast. I find it worrying that that giant state that is being created with a great deal of internal turbulence is now turning into a huge military power.
Finally, I put it to the House that we have 800 days that are an opportunity to strengthen the civil society of Hong Kong—800 days to put right the denial of democracy over the past 150 years.
Tongue-in-cheek, just after the joint declaration was announced 11 years ago, I suggested that we should leave all the white gwailos in China, but give passports to all the Hong Kong Chinese so that they could come to England and then we could watch Britain grow again. That was tongue-in-cheek, but the question of those people who have contributed massively to British wealth
1042
and British companies and who do not at present have the right of abode in this country is serious. Reference has been made to war widows, and I very much hope that in his reply the Minister of State can make a concession on that issue.
It is not too late to act in areas of legislation that would sink deeper the roots of civil society in Hong Kong. The Government and the Governor can act and they should act now.
7.32 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I approach this subject in a way rather different from other hon. Members in that I was in the East Indies fleet when we reoccupied Hong Kong—I almost said in 1845; perhaps that is why most of my hair has gone—in 1945.
I was too young to vote in the 1945 election, although I had already spent a number of years in the East Indies fleet. At that time, I was much more left wing than I am now and I was for decolonisation and for getting myself back to the United Kingdom very quickly. Neither the first nor the second took place.
Even then, there was a feeling about the decolonisation of the British empire. It is almost unbelievable that, 50 years later, we still have a Crown colony in Hong Kong. Two years after we reoccupied Hong Kong, India got its freedom, by which time I was in India, and freedom movements were stirring around the world. It is quite amazing to me that the one—possibly the last—colony that we will have, apart from tiny islands, is Hong Kong.
I welcome the agreement on handing over. It was inevitable that, at some stage, we would have to hand Hong Kong over. The balance of power in the far east has changed, whatever one's principles might be. It is changing fast now. Indeed, from the beginning, the Chinese could have cut off the water. They could have taken action and Hong Kong would have been untenable as a colony. It was only a matter of time before an agreement had to be made to hand it over, and it has been made.
It is my view—it is certainly not the view of every hon. Member who has spoken today—that this is an agreement between two separate sovereign countries, just as the treaty of Nanking was in 1843. The locus is two sovereign countries: Britain and China. It is an agreement not with Hong Kong but between two sovereign countries. From my conversations in the far east, and I have returned there regularly—indeed, I was there last autumn—it is clear that it is a question not of an agreement with Hong Kong but of an agreement between two countries.
Hong Kong is not a party to the treaty, any more than Brent, North, which is an island of Conservatism in what is almost a sea of red in London at present, could on its own be a party to a treaty that we signed with Europe. From my conversations with people over there, I think that China is very well aware that the agreement is between two sovereign countries.
I think that it was a mistake to introduce an extended voting system without the agreement of the Chinese authorities. That has soured the relationship between us and somehow we have to get back to conversation and agreement. I think that that was a moral, if not a political, breach of the agreement.

1043
Obviously, the balance of power is moving around the world. The 19th century was the century of Britain. The 20th century has been that of America and Europe and the 21st century will be that of China and the eastern states. What the majority Chinese people have done in Taiwan has been a miracle. What has happened in Hong Kong has been an economic miracle and a similar economic miracle is now taking place in mainland China. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, those changes are moving now from the economic to the military and other spheres.
We must somehow get around the table again with China, because time is running out, as if in an egg timer, to get concessions where we can. I hope that the through train can come back, because if it does not, there will be serious consequences for Britain and our relationship with China in the long run.
I intend to speak only very briefly. It is amazing that, 50 years from the time that I was first in Hong Kong, it is still a colony, while change has been going on all around the world. If it could be handed over well, we would he able to say that the British empire, having been one of the greatest empires that the world has known, has come to an end honourably and well. I very much hope that we can achieve that through the work of our Foreign Office—I served as the No. 2 to the Foreign Secretary for 15 months up to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985—and skilful diplomacy and concessions where required.
I was very impressed this afternoon by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I was not a Member when he was Chief Whip and became Prime Minister, but I realise now why he was chosen—because of his excellent China policy, which suggested his other abilities. It is the first time that I have congratulated my right hon. Friend in the House, but I do so with great pleasure this afternoon. I was inspired by his speech and if the Foreign Office wants someone to sort the matter out, it need only ring my right hon. Friend.
7.38 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I had not realised until this debate began that it is the first that we have had on Hong Kong in this Parliament, which I think must mean that I took part in the last such debate, some time ago. I did not expect that that would be the case.
I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and I nodded along with it, thinking that it was brave and that he was saying things that needed to be said. There are indeed human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. We should acknowledge that and not be afraid to say it and spell them out and ask what the answers to those questions are. The hon. Gentleman was right to make those points. However, there came a point when I stopped nodding, and that was when he ruined his speech.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the People's Republic of China is, of course, right. The People's Republic should be mature enough to discuss human rights with us but, by overstating the human rights deficiencies in Hong Kong, which he did, he weakened his arguments. He further weakened them by making comments that were wrong and unworthy.
1044
The hon. Gentleman joined the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) in a rather narrow-minded and opportunist attack on the Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South said explicitly—it will be clear in Hansard for those who did not hear it—that he could not back Chris Patten and that, if there were problems, he would not come to his aid, merely because Chris Patten was a Tory politician who might want to return to politics in this country. I found that an extraordinary admission. I do not think that any Conservative Member or, indeed, many Opposition Members, would take that view of a politician from another party who is trying to do a difficult and, let us face it, almost impossible job for his country.
Mr. MacShane: My criticism of Chris Patten is that he has not gone far enough. I would welcome his return to politics in this country as a civilising influence on the Conservative party.
Mr. Hughes: I go along with the hon. Gentleman as far as to say that Chris Patten is much missed in politics in this country and in my party.
However, the worst part of the hon. Gentleman's speech—the same flavour ran through a number of speeches by Labour Members—was his theory that everything could have been done better, that our noble Friend Baroness Thatcher failed and did not understand or try and that, if only cleverer people or people who cared a bit more had been involved, we could have sorted out some of the human rights problems before we agreed to hand back Hong Kong.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, it was crystal clear that Hong Kong was going to be handed back. We had 99 years' notice of that. If the Chinese would not play ball, and if they did not want to deal with human rights issues, or anything else for that matter, there was no way for us to make them do so because the deal was going to go through. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it was remarkable that such a good deal was done.
One issue that has been brought to my attention relates to the construction in the Clearwater bay area of Kowloon of a 400 kV overhead power transmission system by the power utility, the China Light and Power Company Ltd. As many hon. Members will have read in the press, it is causing considerable alarm among local residents. It raises the wider question of the extent to which the Hong Kong Government will act to protect the health of their citizens and the right of local people to be consulted.
The power line is being constructed through what was one of the few remaining scenic parts of Kowloon and the route passes very close to people's homes. An alternative alignment was available, which would have taken the line away from residences, but it was rejected by the Government simply because it involved the possibility of felling trees in a small section of a country park area. Perhaps that was the right decision, although the local people whose homes were affected do not think so. The fact is, however, that the decision was made without their knowledge and they continue to object to a decision about which they learned only when the construction was announced. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to take time in his summing up to respond to that point, but I would be grateful if he would write to me about it.

1045
Human rights and democracy are issues that have run through this debate and it is difficult to deal with one without the other. Of course the people of Hong Kong have every reason to be suspicious of the intentions of the People's Republic of China, especially in the aftermath of Tiananmen square, which still echoes down the years. However, the people of Hong Kong have chosen to accept the various changes to their legislation. They could have rejected what Chris Patten was trying to do and stuck with the view that had been the British Government's view for at least 90 years of British rule of Hong Kong. I do not think that that was the right view and said as much in previous debates.
I believed then, as I believe now, that we should and could have moved more quickly on human rights and democracy, but the people of Hong Kong know what the dangers are. They know what they are facing—they know what could happen in 1997 and beyond—but they have made their choice. I do not think that, from many thousands of miles away, we should seek to second-guess what that choice is or tell them that they should be going further or faster or that they should not have done what they have. They know the circumstances and the dangers but they have made a decision.
The criticism of Chris Patten in his role as Governor is misguided. I do not believe that the Governments could have reached a different agreement, nor do I think that a different Governor with a different approach could have achieved more. Nothing that I have read has persuaded' me otherwise.
In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Sir Percy Cradock said that pushing ahead with legislation despite Chinese opposition
"will do much more harm to Hong Kong than the alternative policy of co-operation with China on the best terms we can get."
As far as I can see, he failed to back up his argument.
What would have been achieved had these issues not been raised by Chris Patten? What would the Chinese Government have agreed to that they have not agreed to under pressure? The answer is nothing. I accept that, having lived there, Sir Percy Cradock understands a great deal about China, but I believe that the attitude that he adopted was craven. I am afraid that, in the past, it was characteristic of British diplomacy in that area to say that we should agree with the Chinese because theirs is a big, emerging nation and we should not quarrel with them. I accept that that is not the British attitude now and I am delighted about that, but I find no evidence to suggest that something has been lost by the harder attitude that has been adopted.
People often talk as if only Britain and the people of Hong Kong have anything to lose. That is not correct because the problem for the People's Republic is that it needs to be seen to make a success of the transition. It needs Hong Kong to work as much as the people of Hong Kong need it to work. That is why I agree with the optimism expressed in some speeches today.
Of course, China has a great deal to learn. If it wants Hong Kong to work, to earn money for the People's Republic and to be a window on the world for the People's Republic, it has to stop doing things such as rescinding McDonald's 20–year lease on the world's largest fast food restaurant, as happened in November 1994. What confidence does that give other multinational companies to move into China? If there is any flavour of that in Hong Kong, the People's Republic will suffer.
1046
[Interruption.] If my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), does not like McDonald's, I suspect that, uncharacteristically, he is out of step with his constituents. I eat at McDonald's in his constituency regularly; I never ask his permission, but I hope that I have it.
The world is not entirely without leverage, however. It may be that the United States Administration would not take much notice and would continue to relate to the most favoured nation status that they accord the People's Republic, but I am sure the Senate and Congress would notice and that a future American Administration would take China to task if the transfer of power in Hong Kong went wrong.
It is certain that the Government of Taiwan—the big prize for the People's Republic—would notice. If they felt that the same would happen to them, there would be no prospect of talks on any future relationship between Taiwan and the People's Republic.
Although the premier of Singapore characteristically defended the People's Republic of China, even he warned that
"Hong Kong will be worse off if she does not retain the instruments of Government which the British brought."
I end my speech with a quotation from the Financial Times which summed up the problem faced by the People's Republic of China. It made the following comments on what the Governor Chris Patten was doing, the dangers of what was happening and the refusal of the People's Republic to discuss matters:
"At least this way he is giving Hong Kong people the chance to experience two years of relative democracy if they so choose and to leave China's rulers with the responsibility of dismantling it in the view of the world, if they so choose."
The transition is taking place in the view of the entire world and if China does not make a success of it, it is not only the people of Hong Kong who will suffer, but the People's Republic of China and it would not want that.
7.51 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now. In a geographical sense, you have shown remarkable imagination by bringing together the scintillating cluster of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and myself, representing the precious little area of north-west London that we cherish so much.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: And the Edgware general hospital.
Mr. Dykes: We could mention the Edgware general hospital, but that would be strictly out of order.
The debate so far has been both thoughtful and subtle. I commend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the equally measured, cautious and restrained presentation of the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made a characteristically skilful speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made some valid points with which I greatly agree. I reassure him that I was not criticising McDonald's, which is one of the most striking and awesome symbols of western culture. Its growth and expansion in Britain is a great saga of commercial success—I also enjoy its offerings. I am

1047
delighted that my hon. Friend visits its restaurants in my constituency; I visit the ones in his constituency, so we have reciprocal gastronomic support.
I have visited the People's Republic of China many times and I declare a parliamentary interest as chairman of the Chinese-British parliamentary group. Even I, with my enthusiasm for that particularly occidental culture, felt dismayed when I looked out of the window of my room at the Beijing hotel just by Tiananmen square and saw a Burger King outside. That was in November 1992, and I am told that it may have moved since, so perhaps that will be the subject of verification on a forthcoming visit.
I have visited Hong Kong many times, but I have visited China many more times. As chairman of a parliamentary friendship group, my words tend to reflect both a great respect for the People's Republic of China and its remarkable achievements—although its political culture is not the same as ours—and an attempt, as an ignorant westerner, to understand China more than some of our colleagues. A clash of cultures occurs when Hong Kong bumps up against the People's Republic of China.
I also have to declare a commercial interest in Hong Kong as I am adviser to an international law firm that is establishing an international office in Hong Kong as a testimonial to its confidence in the future of the territory. It is interesting that the more sensible people in business circles of any provenance and country who work in Hong Kong already or are considering going there are much more open-minded in conversations about the People's Republic of China and what should be done, politically or otherwise, in future by that country.
One of the great diseases of western politicians is the dreadful condescension that we use when we refer to the People's Republic of China. I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Foreign Office for not doing so; one of their principal jobs is to get on well with foreigners. That is often criticised by hon. Members who say that we are giving away some vital national interest. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What has been achieved in the agreement with the People's Republic of China is unique. It is an extraordinary coming together of interests and I remain optimistic about it despite the huge difficulties involved. It is a great tribute to the past and present work of the Foreign Office.
By the same token, the agreement represents a remarkable achievement for the People's Republic in reclaiming its own territory, bearing in mind the dreadful history of the foreign presence in China and its surrounding territories and what we and other foreign nations did to the Chinese, although it was a long time ago and the world is now much more modern and open.
I cannot think of another example of a country reacquiring a territory that was plundered and stolen from it on unequal terms more than 100 years ago and being prepared to make political concessions on the future structures there for the sake of reassuring the local population and many other reasons, including self-interest.
Although spokesmen for the People's Republic of China are often polite enough to say that the transition is definitely on equal terms, we have to face reality. We are a small, fading ex-colonial power and not on equal terms
1048
with a unique and enormous country that is groping and grappling with great difficulty and with the enormous complexities of entering the modern world politically and economically.
The story so far has been stunning in economic terms and the remarkable history of recent expansion is understandably causing anxieties among the leadership in Beijing. It is facing problems that are difficult for foreigners to understand because of the linguistic problem and the sharply different culture, history and traditions of that amazingly interesting country.
China is the most fascinating country in the world for visitors. I have been there many times and I always feel great excitement about visiting it. In contrast, the excitement that we feel when visiting Hong Kong is caused by its capitalist razzmatazz, and Conservatives in particular feel that Hong Kong is uniquely impressive and special.
What has been done so far in the People's Republic of China is a totally different scene. If one considers the extraordinary misery, squalor, degradation and brutality of the political past of China before the revolution and the new regime, one can begin to understand the background to the anxieties of senior members of the political classes when they begin to grope towards whatever form of representative government may emerge in the People's Republic of China in future. It is crazy for us to say, "We have our cosy Westminster and occidental patterns of conventional bourgeois democracy to bestow upon you with immense kindness and here you are, you Chinese chappies. Please accept it from us, bow down and say thank you."
The old attitudes of foreigners in China was a disease as far as the Chinese were concerned and the older ones remember some of its worst manifestations. The previous Kuomintang regime was the internal representation of that external foreign brutality and corruption. It takes time to make a psychological adjustment. I make no excuses for the examples of the lack of human rights in China, but the Tibet saga is grossly exaggerated. I visited Tibet once, but perhaps that was not enough. I am a reasonably experienced observer of different foreign scenes, and the idea that the entire population of Tibet is oppressed is nonsense. It has made remarkable social and economic progress, albeit under a regime that practises collective public ownership of all means of production and exchange—apparently the sort of thing that Labour is giving up.
Neither Tibet nor the People's Republic is, in our terms, an example of free-floating capitalism and effort but manifestations of capitalist growth, fast economic expansion and the acquisition of new production and factories are stunning. I urge hon. Members who have not visited the People's Republic to seize an early opportunity to do so.
The public ownership of assets remains the norm in the People's Republic but the Chinese authorities and their commercial entities have acquired significant mobile and immobile assets in Hong Kong. By July 1997, the People's Republic will already own substantial chunks of Hong Kong's economic activity. That will be a force for stability and continuity.
It is not for us—other than in the framework of the unique treaty-plus agreement deposited at the United Nations, under which the Chinese have obligations that they must respect over a 50–year period and which

1049
embraces two systems in one country—to tell the Chinese, as the future owners of territory originally stolen from them, what to do and how to do it. We may express our opinions but it would be out of order to lecture them and to insist that they must do as we say. That approach causes enormous resentment in Beijing. I criticise not any particular person or persons but the general attitude.
I first visited Hong Kong many years ago—long before Beijing had begun to indicate that it was too late to think of sweeping changes to internal democratic structures. Incidentally, turnouts at the quasi-elections have been modest, with some exceptions. We should not get too carried away with how splendid the new democratic structure in Hong Kong is. Before Beijing indicated that time was running out, and when I asked naively as a first or second-time visitor to Hong Kong, "Why don't they have democracy?" I was told repeatedly by grand, elegant and well-paid business men that the British Hongs as well as the newly emerging Chinese Hongs—who represented outside capitalist interests rather than Chinese traditions—said that democracy was not wanted. There was no question of ever having it because Hong Kong was a British colony and would remain so. Subsequently, reversion to China loomed and common sense prevailed.
Limited democratic structures are already in place. I hope that there will not be excessive conflict and tension between now and 1 July 1997. If resentment in Beijing is so great by then that it is put in a bad mood, that will not help anyone. I am not saying that one should indulge in appeasement or be pusillanimous but we must be realistic. The tragedy is that Britain lost the opportunity to introduce universal suffrage in Hong Kong many decades ago. It was thought that it was easier to run the capitalist system. I will not go into the sordid details of what occurred in those days, but Hong Kong has improved remarkably since. There are probably no significant sweatshops left. There may be small back-street examples, but I am sure that the authorities are vigilant in rooting them out.
We must avoid something of which the Americans are sometimes guilty when they are selective about their definitional basis for human rights. They say, "That's our pattern, folks, so you must accept it. We will be the determinants of human rights classifications in other territories." In the Falklands, the interests of the inhabitants were paramount, but when the Americans wanted a military base in Diego Garcia, its entire population—who had dark skins, by the way—were swept away into east Africa, despite their protests. When the Turks kill Kurds in eastern Turkey, against whatever political background, the Americans do not protest, but if Saddam Hussein or any Iraqi laid so much as a finger on a Kurd, America would go berserk. Such selectivity in Asia and elsewhere—I do not refer to genuine idealists who want human rights implanted everywhere—generates wrong arguments. No attention is paid to different cultures.
I hope that plural political systems will develop in the People's Republic, but it is for its leaders and the Chinese people to determine how that will happen. I understand why those leaders, having seen the chaos and degradation that existed before the revolution, worry over how to handle that change in an enormous country. Political control in the remote provinces is different from that in large cities. How will that be accommodated while allowing much more democracy and freedom? The
1050
emphasis has been on the unique dictatorship of the proletariat, on the traditional Marxist pattern. I hope, with my political views, that that will fade, in concert with remarkable economic growth of the kind already seen in the People's Republic. Again, it is for the Chinese to decide such matters without outside interference or lecturing. The culture in that unique, special and unusual country is often difficult for us to grasp, partly for linguistic reasons.
The suggestion is that the future Government in Beijing will be similar to those of the old days, when the revolution exercised iron discipline—excessive in our terms—over people not prepared to be part of it. We saw that over a much longer period in the Soviet Union, but that has been demolished. I am not sure what will happen in future China. I imagine that the collectivist system and the dominance of the Communist party will continue longer but will allow the development of civic and political freedoms that we cherish—but in the Chinese way, and more strongly in cities than in rural areas for evident reasons. We will applaud whatever freedoms emerge in the People's Republic. Meanwhile, we must make sure of a good future for Hong Kong and that, as the outgoing colonial power, we leave it in a good state.
I conclude by quoting the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—before he does so himself—from his article in London's excellent newspaper, the Evening Standard:
"But the choice for Hong Kong is not, and never has been, for Britain alone to make. As the hand-over approaches, the spotlight will inevitably shift to the future sovereign power. More and more it will be to China that the people of Hong Kong and its overseas friends and investors look for reassurances about the future. The British and Hong Kong governments will do all they can to help maintain the confidence on which Hong Kong depends.
I am neither over-optimistic nor a pessimist about the future. I know only that if China and Britain work together, in their own interests and that of Hong Kong, the right choices will be made."
I also rest on that proposition, which is a reasonable one for the House, this debate and the population of Hong Kong.
8.9 pm
Mr. William Powell: It is not surprising that there has been, this afternoon and this evening, a celebration in the House of how successful Hong Kong is as a British colony and dependent territory, but I hope that, as British people, we will not be too self-satisfied or complacent about that, because the reality is that the success of Hong Kong is above all else the success of the Chinese people who live there and the Chinese people from outside Hong Kong who have traded with it and contributed to building up its remarkable economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) called it a golden nugget. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was the most exciting city that he knew of this age. Those are two judgments with which I concur. But the reality is that it is the Hong Kong Chinese themselves who have made by far and away the greatest contribution to the success of Hong Kong. It is not merely a commercial success, but a success in the public service. Some of the finest public servants I have ever met anywhere in the world are Chinese Hong Kong people. I have found that they have served Great Britain and Hong Kong with a distinction unrivalled in any other country I have ever seen.

1051
I shall try to illuminate aspects of the Chinese relationship by referring to the People's Republic of China and to China within a wider Chinese context. The success of Hong Kong is mirrored in Singapore and in the Republic of China, on Taiwan. I declare an interest as chairman of the British-Taiwan parliamentary group, which, I am glad to say, is now one of the largest single friendship inter-parliamentary groups in our Parliament and it goes from strength to strength. The 3 million Chinese people of Singapore, the 6 million Chinese people of Hong Kong and the 21 million Chinese people of Taiwan have created economic tigers with a massive and awesome potential. They are, of course, precisely the same people as those who live in the People's Republic of China. Most of those who live on Taiwan are brothers, sisters and cousins of people who live just over the straits of Taiwan, in the province of Fukien/Fujian.
All of us should be aware that as economic liberation—perhaps political liberation, but let us concentrate on the former—grows in the People's Republic of China, so we must expect to find more and more of its residents becoming as successful, as enterprising and as important to the world as their brothers, sisters and cousins in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Only one matter disappointed me in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook): he did not mention Taiwan at all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) referred to the fact that the media will not be interested in what we say in the House. It will not be reported. They are not really interested in what is happening in east Asia itself. The ignorance, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, about what is going on in east Asia is quite terrifying. The media—television, radio and newspapers—are failing to convey to the people of our country what is happening in east Asia.
Let me give one insight, which to me is of the greatest significance for the future. The time of the United States' peak influence in the world's economy was 1950, when the United States was responsible for 40 per cent. of the world's economic activity. But it was predictable that that would be the peak, because it was predictable that Germany and Japan would recover from world war two, and that although the United States would continue to grow, its relative influence in the world economy would in fact decline from that peak. The estimates now being made are that in 2000–54 months away, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said—the whole of the Asian Pacific rim, from South Korea to Singapore and Malaysia, will account for 40 per cent. of the world's economic activity. But anybody who imagines that that will be a peak year for east Asia's influence in the world economy is simply living in cloud cuckoo land. It will grow and grow. Of course, the biggest growth will be in the People's Republic of China.
Let me consider for a moment our relationship with Taiwan and how it fits into the whole pattern, because our relations today, I believe, are as close and as warm as they have been at any time. I pay tribute to Mr. Philip Morrice, our trade representative in Taipei, for all the excellent work that he has done in building up that relationship. I also pay tribute to Taiwan's representatives in this
1052
country, who have also worked extremely hard. They are Dr. Eugene Chien and his staff, Mr. David Liu in the cultural office, and their predecessors, not least Mr. Ray Tai, who is now the equivalent of the presidential spokesman for President Li, in Taipei. A lot of people have worked hard to build up the relationship. But the trading relationship, important though it is to both countries, is still on a low plane. Total trade involving the Republic of China on Taiwan and Great Britain is in the region of $US3 billion a year. It is still at a relatively low level. There is potential for a massive expansion, if we want it to take place.
In considering what our relations, as regards the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, will be post—1997, we must also consider what our relations with Taiwan will be at that time. That must be reviewed. My main plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister this evening is to urge that there now be a fundamental review, conducted in the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, in all aspects of the British Government, as to our total relationship with the People's Republic of China. I find, wherever I look, ignorance about the true events on Taiwan. That is not helpful to the interests of this country and to our understanding what is really happening in China itself.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an interesting and correct point, when he referred to the fact that Hong Kong is now the world's largest container port. The second largest container port is Singapore and the third largest is Kao Shiung on Taiwan. Rotterdam is only number four. If one goes to Hong Kong—as so many hon. Members have done—one will see that the containers have come from Singapore and Kao Shiung. Of the six largest container lines in the world, two are based in Taiwan. The world's largest shipping line is Evergreen. We see its containers on our motorways every single day. We see their distinctive green and white colours. The sixth largest shipping line in the world is YM—Yang Ming, from Taiwan.
Taiwan is the size of the Netherlands, with a population of 21 million. It is the world's 12th largest trading power, with the world's second largest foreign currency reserves—an important matter, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford underlined. It has two of the largest shipping lines in the world. Its potential for the economy of Asia is of the most profound importance. The British empire was based on shipping and our ability to ship goods across oceans. Today, the Chinese—whether they are in Taiwan or Singapore, because one of those six container lines is Genstar from Singapore—are enjoying economic activity on a huge scale. The container vessels in Hong Kong have come from Kao Shiung and Singapore—and, of course, from the rest of the world, but those are the two largest ports.
I ask the hon. Member for Livingston to prepare for the office he seeks by going to see, with his own eyes, not merely what is happening in Hong Kong—that is easy for British people—but what is happening in Taiwan. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) should go too. They should go to Kao Shiung, with its modern industrial economy and awesome power—the steel works; immediately next door the shipyard; and immediately next door to that the port, with 17 km of berths. Every day of the week, every week of the year those berths are being used. They are constantly being expanded. We have no

1053
port like it—17 km with ocean-going container vessels in full activity and being turned around in under 24 hours, again and again and again.
China Shipping in Taiwan is not even the most efficient shipbuilding company in the world, although it can make a 149,000 deadweight-tonne, ocean-going container ship in just nine months. We could not begin to do that, but it can be done even faster in South Korea. We must see, think about and understand what is happening in the Taiwan economy and realise that it is dominated by Chinese people.
We should go not just to Kao Shiung; we should go to the other end of the island to Shinschu university, near the Chiang Kai Shek international airport. It is a modern science university and next door to it is the Shinschu science park. Of course, it is associated with the university. It has 140 acres—only a small site—but it is the original one-stop shop. It is fascinating that the one-stop shop was invented in Taiwan. The science park now has an annual turnover in excess of $US 6 billion and soon it will be $US 10 billion. Companies such as Acer, one of the world's largest computer companies, dominate the park. It has 140 companies, but when I visited it I found that only four came from Europe and none from Great Britain.
If we want to know what is happening in the world economy of the future, we must visit places such as Taiwan. Of course, we have no diplomatic relations with that country. Almost no British public officials have been there. I am glad to say that a number of Ministers have been there in a semi-private, semi-public capacity, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that he has told the Cabinet about what he saw there on his short visit.
When I was last in Taiwan, as I was leaving I saw something that almost made me cry. I had taken with me a number of my colleagues from the British-Taiwan parliamentary group to see for themselves what was happening there. As we were leaving the airport, Francois Fillon—a young man of great importance to the future of France, its Minister for higher education—was arriving on a visit to Taipei. He had brought with him 40 members of the national assembly. It would be a good thing if 40 Members of this House were to go to Taiwan to see what was happening—at once and with a Cabinet Minister.
The relationship with Taiwan matters enormously and I want to underline a few of the really important factors. First, we should celebrate and give all credit for the transformation from a society under martial law to an exuberant and increasingly democratic society in Taiwan. We could not say about many places in this world that a country is undergoing a genuine transformation from a totalitarian to a democratic regime, where the people do not vote just once, but repeatedly. We might feel rather superior about many of the exuberant and exciting practices in the Taiwan democracy, which may have their origins more in American society than in ours. However, the fact that Taiwan is making such a transformation is something that we should recognise publicly and at the highest level.
Secondly, we should recognise the contribution that Taiwan makes to Britain. It is not just the fact that 90 per cent. of its inward investment into Europe comes to
1054
Britain—and there is enormous potential for more Taiwanese companies to invest in this country. We need to go out and get it. There is also the investment Taiwan makes in our education system with 8,000 Taiwanese students. Ten years ago, the number of Taiwanese students who came to this country for their education was comfortably under 100. It is massive business and a massive vote of confidence in our colleges and universities. It is not just students; it is endowments, such as those at the London School of Economics, at Oxford university and at other universities. I hope that more universities will sign agreements with Taiwan's universities—21 of them. Some 15 per cent. of Taiwan's gross national product is, under a requirement of the constitution, invested annually in education.
What is happening in Taiwan is happening in Hong Kong and in Singapore. It is a feature of the Chinese people themselves. We have absolutely nothing about which to feel superior or complacent when we look at their achievements in the last generation. Liberate those in the PRC and we will find that the entire centre of the world will shift to Asia, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford underlined in his powerful, overarching analysis of the total position.
The time has come for British Cabinet Ministers to go to Taiwan. The time has come for us to enhance the political and diplomatic recognition between our countries. The time has come for us to say that whatever may have been the potential difficulties in a relationship with Taiwan because of Hong Kong, in 1997 that will have passed. We have only 26 months to start planning for the post—1997 British-Taiwan relationship.
There is another important matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). We are concerned whether the agreement between Beijing and Hong Kong will stick. However, I do not believe that in Beijing, Hong Kong is the most important horizon. Far from it, in the inter-Chinese relationships it is the Beijing-Taipei relationship that is of more importance to Beijing than the Beijing-Hong Kong relationship. There is a desperate desire for the Chinas to be reunited. Nothing would cause a collapse of potential confidence between Beijing and Taipei more than for Beijing to misbehave and renege on its agreement with Hong Kong. Indeed, Hong Kong will play a central part in building the confidence that is essential for the future relationship between Beijing and Taipei. But Taipei is more important to Beijing than Hong Kong. Reunification is an essential goal for Chinese people. Although they may growl at each other in public, the reality is that unofficial relations between those countries are considerable.
In improving, upgrading and reviewing our relations with Taipei, we need to consider the protection of intellectual property—a vitally important matter for this country. If we leave Taipei and Taiwan out in the cold even though she is a first division country—we must now call her a premier division country—in the world economic leagues, and unless she is tied in with the international relationships governing trade, intellectual property and so on, a barrier will always exist.
We should be taking the lead in the International Atomic Energy Agency, another important matter. It is not just a matter of what Taipei contributes to this country. Trade is taking place in the other direction. Two

1055
years ago, ICI opened in Taiwan its largest single overseas investment. Other major British companies such as Glaxo already have huge investments there.
In the commercial world, we find that business men look at the whole Chinese situation, not merely one small part of it. The time has come for our Foreign Office and the Government to reconsider the matter and to realise that changes must be made in the way in which we handle Taiwan.
8.31 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who is chairman of the British-Taiwan group. Perhaps we should say, the Republic of China on Taiwan, because that is what it really is. He is so right to draw attention to the importance of the Pacific rim, and to the way in which Taiwan is leading growth in that region. It is significant that growth in that region still increased during the world recession that we have just been through. As a measure of economic activity, civil aviation is a good guide, and civil airlines of the far east and Pacific rim were still showing enormous growth in traffic when the rest of the world was in recession.
I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is chairman of the British-China group. He follows the late Robert Adley, a distinguished chairman, who was an expert on China. I dare say that his interest in China may have originated from an interest in its trains. It is still one of the countries laying down considerable lengths of track. That is fairly unique and shows the way in which the economy of the People's Republic of China is growing.
Part of the object of all-party groups is to build up a better understanding of the countries with which we are twinned. It would be worth while putting on record our debt of gratitude to Jung Chang, the author of that memorable and unique book "Wild Swans". If ever one wants to get a picture of China's chaotic political past over three generations, that is the book to read. I am sorry that it has not been mentioned this evening.
I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said. He has been the only person to mention the through-train concept, which was worth following. I am sorry that it has been dropped. It is important to safeguard the system that we want to see established in Hong Kong to the year 2047 and beyond, and the through-train concept was likely to ensure that that was done.
When I was preparing my notes for this debate, I realised that I was sitting just below a print of the East India Company ships that helped to build Hong Kong into one of the world's greatest trading centres. The picture was published in 1843, the year in which the first Governor of Hong Kong took office—the right hon. Sir Henry Pottinger. I want to recall some appropriate words of the present and, I hope, last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten. I pay tribute to the work that he has done as Governor of Hong Kong. I applaud his energy, dedication and what he has delivered.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made an interesting speech. He struck a sour note, but he did the debate a service because he reminded us of
1056
China's problems, of the need to understand that country better, and of its human rights record, which we should never forget. He said that Mr. Patten was a prisoner of Conservative philosophy. I dug out a slim volume written by Chris Patten in 1982–83, called "The Tory Case". It may be slim, but it contains some weighty words. On the subject of principles of the Conservative party, he said that three strands of thought
"have run through the history of the Party. First, there was opposition to systems, to political blue-prints and to utopianism … Secondly, there was the defence of property and order and an organic view of society. Thirdly, there was an unashamed patriotism, a defence of Crown and of country".
Chris Patten has applied those principles to his job as Governor, and he has done well.
The first of those principles is especially important in relation to Hong Kong. It is the opposition to systems. We have heard repeatedly this afternoon that Hong Kong's future is based on the slogan, "one country, two systems", but the free enterprise culture that has so characterised Hong Kong is much more than a system; it is a total way of life unencumbered by rigid constitutional rules or dogma. It is unlike the People's Republic of China, where communism still rules—never let us forget that.
I hope that the marriage of two systems will be no less dramatic than that between old imperial Britain and the Hong Kong Chinese more than 150 years ago. That new marriage has the potential to create the same hybrid vigour that will ensure that Hong Kong continues to prosper in the years to come. That will happen because no doubt exists that the People's Republic of China is changing fast.
The world circumstances in which responsibility for Hong Kong will pass to the People's Republic of China on 1 July 1997 will be different from those that prevailed when the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong's future was signed in 1984 or, for that matter, when Chris Patten wrote his book in 1982–83. The world has undergone a fundamental political change with the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. The People's Republic of China was a key player in bringing that about and deserves credit for it.
I ask the House to think back to April 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev first launched his ideas on perestroika. That was never going to work unless it was coupled with glasnost—perestroika meaning "reform", glasnost meaning "the open door". Immense pressures were being brought to bear on the Soviet Union at the time—pressures involving not only military matters such as the arms race, but satellite dish and international communications. People in the Soviet Union were beginning to be able to see what life was like the other side of the iron curtain. He found those pressures impossible to resist and the economy was beginning to crumble anyway. He needed perestroika and, therefore, an open door so that he could begin to communicate with the west.
No one opens his front door without ensuring that his back door is safe, and the Soviet Union's back door stretched all the way from Afghanistan to Vladivostok—3,500 miles, with Chinese all the way. It is greatly to the credit of the People's Republic of China and its leadership that it held a summit meeting, the first for 20 years, at which agreement was reached with Gorbachev to ensure that his back door was safe should he decide to open his

1057
front door. We should not forget the role that the Chinese played in promoting glasnost and reform and therefore helping to trigger the collapse of communism all over the world, although not in their own People's Republic.
Once the process of reform in the former Soviet Union had begun, the dominoes began to fall everywhere else. The mistake that the Soviet Union and so many of the other countries in eastern Europe made was to rush for political reform, setting up new political democratic structures without first establishing the free market economies essential if those new administrations were to succeed and be sustained in the longer term.
The People's Republic of China recognised the impending chaos, and was far more cautious. The Chinese were determined to see the free market economic structure well in being before they would ever start thinking about changing political structures. The Chinese think long term, and they knew that once the free market was up and running, the political changes that they wanted would almost certainly follow, as night follows day. There is no doubt that that is good for Hong Kong.
Bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic are ever improving. Our relationship with China is now broadly based—commercial, cultural, and covering political issues, too. Business between our two countries is booming, and we are the largest European investor in China, with new investment last year 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1993. And my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to take 100 British' business men to China on a trade mission soon.
Our links are not only in business, but are cultural. We have many Chinese students in this country—about 5,000 in all—and that number is growing all the time. That form of cultural diplomacy is probably the best that one can have.
China also shares with the United Kingdom important international responsibilities as a global power, such as our joint membership of the United Nations Security Council. We also look forward to welcoming China as a member of the World Trade Organisation. Those are all good reasons why it is in China's national interests to honour her agreement to the one nation, two systems arrangement in Hong Kong. The fragile business and political confidence there will then be preserved, so that Hong Kong can continue to expand its contribution to China's economy—it produced about 26 per cent. of China's gross domestic product in 1993—to the advantage of all the Chinese people.
There are two territories sitting on the sidelines watching all this with great interest, and with as much anxiety as the people of Hong Kong. The first, Tibet, is concerned about its political autonomy, which we rightly recognise. We hope that China will not only improve its human rights record in that country but give Tibetans a greater say in running their own affairs.
The other territory is Taiwan, the last remaining province of the old Republic of China, which we have just heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. It has been deprived of its seat at the United Nations and is not now recognised as an independent state, although effectively it operates as one. Taiwan is an important trading partner of the United Kingdom, and 90 per cent. of its investment in Europe comes to Britain. It also sends about 8,000 students here, all young ambassadors for their country. No doubt they are just as ambassadorial in representing us back home.
1058
Taiwan's economic relationship with China is not unlike Hong Kong's. Just as China can regard 1997 as a step towards national reunification with Hong Kong, the circumstances that might lead to reunification with Taiwan are also beginning to emerge. First, China is changing. Even following a change in China's leadership, I do not think that the People's Liberation Army would let the present impetus towards economic and political reform be lost.
Secondly, Taiwan has established democratic structures that seem to be working. Thirdly, its economy is becoming more and more closely linked with that of the People's Republic of China. It is significant that manufacturing has now almost moved out of Taiwan. In Hong Kong, there is now a substantial fall in manufacturing employment and a big increase in service industries, marketing, banking and finance. In Taiwan, which has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, unit labour costs are 20 times higher than those on the Chinese mainland, and it is hardly surprising that much of its investment in manufacturing now takes place on the mainland.
The stepping stone that Taiwan has hitherto used for its investment in manufacturing in the People's Republic of China—Hong Kong—is being reunited with China, so effectively Taiwan will be dealing directly with China after 1997. If the PRC really wants reunification with Taiwan, it must demonstrate that the one country, two systems arrangement can be made to work in Hong Kong.
If a constructive dialogue between the PRC and Taiwan about reunification begins, would the Government consider granting diplomatic status to the Taipei representative in London? For 40 years, the Republic of China on Taiwan has held out as representing the whole of China, but in 1991 that changed and it established a mainland affairs council to work out policies for reunification, to add a political dimension to what was already beginning to happen, economically.
There have been 14 rounds of talks already on a wide range of issues, political, cultural and economic. The democratic process that has now been established in Taiwan confirms that the Chinese people who live there like what is being done on their behalf by their leaders, which will help to maintain their economic leadership.
I was sorry to hear that the Taipei representative in London, Dr. Eugene Chien, was burgled the other night. Although it does not accord him diplomatic status, it might be worth the Foreign Office considering offering him some of the niceties usually afforded to the representatives of other countries here. The police are normally on guard at diplomatic residences, and we ought to consider such facilities for Dr. Chien, who is an important person in the economics and politics of his country and also a vital link between this country and Taiwan.
I have little time for the alarmist rhetoric of some members of LegCo, such as Martin Lee, the chairman of the Democratic party, but I share his concern that after 1997 the rule of law in Hong Kong must be safeguarded, so as to maintain the open and free system that instils and maintains confidence and attracts inward investors. I also agree with him that an independent statutory human rights commission with teeth should be established to enforce the Bill of Rights already in existence. I agree that the Court of Final Appeal must be set up well before 1997,

1059
according to the requirements set out clearly in the joint declaration and the Basic Law, and not watered down in any way by China.
Concerns are also expressed by Christine Loh, another LegCo councillor, about the functions and status of the Chinese Communist party in Hong Kong. If the CCP is just another political party, I know how many seats it is likely to win in future municipal and national elections in Hong Kong. But it is not an ordinary party; it holds supreme power in a totalitarian state. It is important that the CCP realises that its system in China cannot be extended to Hong Kong without the wholehearted consent of the Hong Kong people, which is not likely to be given.
I believe that Hong Kong post—1997 will continue to be a shining example of what free enterprise and the individual freedoms thus engendered are all about. Confidence will be maintained. It is in everybody's interest, not least China's, that it is maintained. I also believe that the unique special administrative region, as it will be known, will be an economic locomotive for the whole of China and, by its example, could well also become a political locomotive.
8.49 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that there are only some 796 days left before Hong Kong is returned to the People's Republic of China. It seems a great shame that at this crossroads in the history of Hong Kong and, indeed of China, despite some bright spots such as progressfinally—over the airport and over the disposal of the defence estate, we are still seeing far too much megaphone diplomacy between Peking and the Governor of Hong Kong.
I take this opportunity, as other hon. Members have, to pay tribute to the former Member for Bath, Chris Patten, who has been conspicuous in exercising grace under pressure since he became Governor of Hong Kong. Some people are far too glib, especially Hong Kong's business community, which attributes the sort of difficulties that we have seen to his arrival. In fact, historically, they stem not from that moment in history but from the tragic events of Tiananmen square, which, as we have heard, had two distinct effects: one on the leadership in the People's Republic of China and one on the population of Hong Kong, many of whom had never given much thought until then to democratic systems and the like.
There are, let it be said, growing worries in Hong Kong about press freedom, about the status and independence of the judiciary and of civil servants, about the statutes and regulations that need to be dealt with, about the rule of law itself and about the impasse over such matters as container terminal 9. I shall touch on two difficulties over the rule of law: the Court of Final Appeal and the problem of local statute law and regulation.
I have, sadly, come to the conclusion that to protect Hong Kong after the handover in 1997, democracy is simply not enough of a bulwark. Whatever the troubled history of trying to introduce democracy over the years in Hong Kong—there was an attempt, for example, shortly after the second world war—much of what we have done has been too little, too late, despite excellent intentions.
1060
The Patten proposals are very laudable indeed, albeit fairly small beer by United Kingdom standards, which makes it all the more worrying that they have caused such annoyance in Peking. The business community in Hong Kong, or large sections of it, has little interest in political matters and is antipathetic to what Governor Patten is trying to do. Indeed, even now, although there is growing enthusiasm, voter registration and participation in elections is still somewhat disappointing.
So the so-called through train now seems certain to be derailed in 1997, or at least the passengers will be required to disembark and will be subjected to some form of vetting by their new political masters before some of them are permitted to continue their journey. There are fears, of course, that part of that vetting process will involve some kind of loyalty test to the People's Republic.
All that is happening despite the fact, whatever arguments there may be about the small print, that the joint declaration clearly envisaged the evolution of Hong Kong's political system, not only up to 1997 but beyond and well into the future. It is all the more surprising perhaps that in recent urban council and regional council elections, there has been a respectable showing for the pro-China Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. Certainly, it took part with considerable enthusiasm in those elections. I assume that it will do the same in September in the LegCo elections, which will be the last elections under British administration. I suspect, however, that the real preference of the PRC is for the more traditional type of so-called functional constituencies, which, apart from anything else, are somewhat easier to lean on in difficult times.
The only realistic bulwark in favour of Hong Kong, to protect it after 1997, is the rule of law. That is the lasting legacy of this country in Hong Kong. First, it underpins entirely the phenomenal commercial success of Hong Kong, of which we have heard so much this evening. Secondly, it does so much to control corruption. It has always been there, bubbling away under the surface in Hong Kong and at times there have been problems.
The two main aspects of the rule of law, as I said, fall into two distinct categories. First, there is the problem of statutes; the technical side of tidying up thousands of pages of statutes and regulations such as those affecting references to the Crown, to the British Government, matters of property and matters of company law. That may sound very dry and uninteresting to some hon. Members, but those statutes are, in fact, pretty crucial, when one thinks about it, to ensuring the continued success of the free enterprise capitalist system that is Hong Kong. There are also rather more sinister laws and regulations such as those referring to sedition, some of which are throw-backs to colonial days, as other hon. Members have said. It arouses considerable concern—I hope unjustifiably—in some quarters in Hong Kong that the PRC was so very annoyed when some of those old regulations were removed, unilaterally, as it turns out, by the Governor.
The Court of Final Appeal is vital. Other hon. Members have referred to it, and rightly, because it is such a crucial issue. It is difficult to exaggerate its importance in sustaining confidence in Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997. We know that it featured in the original discussions with the Peking Government and that a separate agreement was reached in 1991, which dealt with the constitution of the court. Admittedly, progress was

1061
delayed when LegCo rejected part of the agreement, limiting the number of non-permanent judges, including overseas judges, who would sit on the court. But support for the agreement in Hong Kong and, indeed, in LegCo has been growing recently, which allowed the Government in Hong Kong in May 1994 to give the Chinese Government the text of a draft Bill designed to put the 1991 agreement into effect.
The Peking Government have reiterated their commitment to the 1991 agreement, but despite various technical discussions—we heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there are to be more shortly—the Chinese have yet to support the introduction of the Bill into LegCo. It is important that that court is established soon, in good time for the handover to Peking, to give it an opportunity of building up a body of jurisprudence and, indeed, of respect within the Hong Kong community. That would give an enormous boost to confidence in Hong Kong.
One of the dangers that threatens the success of Hong Kong after 1997 is the growth of corruption, eating away from the bottom the success story that has been Hong Kong. I am not talking about the more mundane signs of corruption, but of privilege and influence—perhaps the growing pressure, when organising joint ventures with the mainland, to include one of the so-called princelings in the arrangements, which is the sort of influence that one sees in certain parts of business in the PRC. That concern, among others, underlines the need for a through train, if not on the democratic reforms, at least for the rule of law.
I would say to the PRC tonight, "What are you worried about? Why be so churlish and seem so intent on hurling abuse at the retreating back of a former colonial power that is leaving voluntarily, peacefully and by agreement in less than 800 days? That power is bequeathing you reserves that are several times the size of those originally promised, not to mention a thriving economy, including a major new airport structure and other infrastructure projects, as well as a sophisticated financial centre." The problems of the Vietnamese refugees have largely been dealt with and we are leaving a stable and well-run Administration.
The concept of one country, two systems, was bold, courageous and novel when it was first announced by Deng Xiaoping. It has far-reaching implications for the PRC's status in international affairs and such matters as the World Trade Organisation and, not least, for its future relationship with Taiwan, as was pointed out by the ever-perceptive, late Mr. Richard Nixon and many hon. Members. It also has the far-reaching implication that the Chinese Government are seen to do the right thing within the one country, two systems principle.
I call on the PRC to put past misunderstandings and mistrusts behind it. It has everything to gain, and a great deal to lose by further obstructionism. It should get on with the task in hand, to which Her Majesty's Government are fully committed—to produce a smooth and efficient handover of that dynamic and successful asset—because, to use the words of Governor Patten,
"Standing still is not an option".
9.1 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: May I warmly welcome the fact that this debate has taken place today? It is significant that it is the first such debate in
1062
this Parliament and the fact that so much time has been devoted to it should demonstrate the importance that we attach to it.
My knowledge of Hong Kong is relatively new. I flew there last year and it was a memorable experience. The landscape was dramatic. The mountains, surrounded by a soaring forest of dazzlingly designed skyscrapers and high-rise buildings, all descending to the sea, gave a first taste of what I found when I landed. On the ground, I discovered a dynamic and exhilarating community, whose energy is rightly the envy of the world.
I arrived last September, as the guest of the Hong Kong Government and accompanied by my husband, to discover for myself at first hand exactly what is going on there. I found it a stimulating, worthwhile and highly illuminating exercise. I had an intensive programme, covering all the principal aspects of the world of business, bankers, shipowners, entrepreneurs, lawyers, academics, politicians, civil servants, and the people themselves. I found a jewel of a territory, with a thriving economy which, in just 796 days, will be in the full possession of China.
Logic would suggest that the Chinese Government would be delighted at getting such an asset, which will arrive with reserves at an unprecedented level of $HK151 billion. That is way ahead of the original estimate of $HK25 billion, and $HK31 billion more than was forecast just a year ago. Add to that the exchange fund of $HK30 billion and the new airport, which will bring handsome dividends—I welcome the news that the financial arrangements have finally been agreed—and the new container terminals, all of which could be considered handsome dowries to secure even greater prosperity.
Hong Kong's thriving economy will be a boon to the People's Republic as it will represent 23 per cent. of China's GDP. The colony's real average GDP growth is 7 per cent., twice that of the world's economy as a whole. Some 1,000 British companies operate in Hong Kong, including some enterprising businesses from my own constituency of Sutton. Record profits, low taxation and high reserves make any country envious of Hong Kong.
Why, then, is there such a sour taste in the mouth of the Chinese Government? In truth, it is caused by a cultural gap, which is unlikely to be bridged properly in the short term. We are hindered by the history of old imperialism. The Chinese just do not believe that any colonial power could be so altruistic as to hand over a generous endowment without any strings attached. They believe that they will be landed with a heavy bill at the end, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They do not believe that they are really getting a gift horse. They do not believe that Britain's sole policy is to do what is best for Hong Kong. We have no selfish interest; we see our role there as a duty.
That is why, regrettably, the Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, will most likely be criticised by the Chinese Government until the very moment of his departure. The truth is that whatever plan of action he took would be criticised. If he did nothing to secure the best possible deal in the interests of the people of Hong Kong, he would be labelled a lame duck. By his taking typically direct action, in his own way—admittedly a somewhat House of Commons style—political mistrust, which has existed for a long time, has now been able to focus on the Governor,

1063
and he has been made a scapegoat. China has used that as an excuse for dragging its feet and delaying progress on the handover arrangements.
The Chinese see democracy, as proposed by Mr. Patten, as a means of thwarting the full exercise of Chinese sovereignty, even though they have agreed to it in principle under the joint declaration. As a result, they have resorted to xenophobia, personal insults and appeals to Han nationalism to encourage rejection of the proposals. They are on weak ground, because they have persistently refused to put forward any alternative proposals, and instead have retreated behind a wall of angry rhetoric.
In fairness to the Governor, it takes two to tango and without one partner, the Chinese, it is difficult to make much progress at all. I agree that we should be positive, approachable and maintain contact at all levels no matter what the provocation. One does, however, need a response. To that end, I am proud that the Governor has not wilted under the pressure from Beijing. He needs broad shoulders to cope with the constant flow of carping criticism and negative positions. He has, however, added to his personal dignity by being scrupulous in not engaging in direct attacks on Chinese tactics.
I resent the utterly unworthy remarks about Chris Patten made by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
Dr. Bray: The hon. Lady would do well to read my speech, because I was explaining the political position in the House of Commons, as we understand it very well, to a highly intelligent public in Hong Kong. I believe that she has got the matter upside down.
Lady Olga Maitland: If I have somewhat misrepresented the hon. Gentleman's comments, I shall withdraw my remark, but I got the impression that his references to the Governor were not worthy. I stand by my assertion that the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham did not reflect the dignity of the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
In the end, history will be kinder to the Governor. It is a tribute to Chris Patten that he has sparked an open debate and galvanised opinion in the manner of a democratic society. It may, of course, be true that the quieter, continuing efforts to develop an independent administration for LegCo may be more effective in the long run.
However, long after the Governor has left and the proud Union Jack no longer flutters above Government House, the Chinese will realise that he left a territory that is an opportunity for China to build on, not a threat. After all, Hong Kong has been largely created by people who fled from the old China, who desperately want the new China to do well.
Hong Kong is not asking for the moon. It is simply saying, "Hang on; we want to have a say in the running of our own affairs." The people of Hong Kong have a vested interest in ensuring that their society continues free of corruption, with a fair and just legal system—hence the importance, as we have heard today, of the Court of Final Appeal. They want a society free from the fear of the knock on the door by the secret police in the middle of the night, a society with a free press and freedom of speech and political thought. Those are the best guarantors of a prosperous, thriving society.
1064
Admittedly, different interest groups have different perspectives on the future. I ran into a heavy wall of flak from the business community. Those people bent my ear very hard, individually and in groups. The Hong Kong chamber of commerce had a clear message; its members feared that attempts by the Governor to press forward with a limited democratic programme would cause a backlash from Peking, which would affect their business prospects, although they admitted that there was no evidence that that was happening.
Reading through the notes that I took at the time, I read that members of the chamber of commerce claimed that the Governor was
"insufficiently flexible—he should co-operate more with Beijing—he should focus more on relations with China because that ultimately is where the future lies."
Perhaps there are touches of truth behind some of the comments about the Governor's style, but there was also an unattractive tinge of self-interest—a case of, "I'm all right, Jack," because the big businesses are doing extremely well in China. In many cases, they have moved all their factories out of Hong Kong into China, and they do not want to rock the boat.
If those business men paused for a moment to consider, they would realise that the tremendous boom and prosperity that has occurred in Hong Kong did not happen by accident, but by ensuring an ordered, corruption-free society, with an effective judicial system which guaranteed the security of their commercial dealings. What of the people left behind? What about the man in the coolie hat with his street stall? How will he fare? Who will report openly and fairly what the ordinary man's fortunes are likely to be?
As a former journalist, I paid a call on the Foreign Correspondents club—a salutary lesson, for the foreign press corps is already beginning to pack its bags in preparation for 1997. Those correspondents have repeatedly learned of Chinese colleagues who have been arrested and disappeared for being too frank with the news. The Peking Government have made it very clear to them that the freedom of speech that they are used to in Hong Kong will not be allowed to continue. They were warned by the New China News Agency that reporting must be "accurate—and objective". In shorthand, it meant, "no criticism".
I therefore welcome the Hong Kong Government's plan for 41 regulations to help maintain that important democratic freedom. In my opinion, that is an urgent priority.
Human rights are important. I am not altogether comfortable with putting all our faith in the Bill of Rights, worthy as it is, introduced after the Tiananmen square massacre. I am not convinced that the Bill of Rights alone would guarantee human rights. It would be bolstered if supported by a human rights commission with teeth. It would give human rights a higher profile with a greater infrastructure around it.
I congratulate many of the brave politicians in Hong Kong on their efforts in that direction. We would be failing ourselves utterly if we were not persistent in our vigilance in that regard. I believe that a firm approach to human rights will not affect our ultimate relations with China, in much the same way as it did not affect our relations with the former Soviet Union when we drew attention to human rights there.

1065
I shall now discuss the importance of democracy as it has developed. The district election campaigns were going on when I was in Hong Kong. I went out to watch two of the parties, the United Democrats and the Democratic Alliance, canvass for supporters in Kowloon.
The Governor was right. The ordinary Hong Kong citizen was interested in political representation. I attended a public meeting at which all the local candidates were present. About 40 sat on wooden benches in a school. It was not so different from meetings in this country. Local issues were discussed such as transport, noise pollution, pensions and so on—the latter being a major topic, for state pensions were unknown before they were introduced by Chris Patten. I accompanied candidates on the doorstep and found that there was polite interest. Not one door was slammed in the face of a candidate.
A local opinion poll showed a high percentage of genuine interest. Some 90 per cent. of the people were aware of the elections in which they could vote. Ultimately, both the district board elections in September 1994 and the elections for the municipal councils in March ended in convincing wins for pro-democracy parties. I expect that this September's elections will produce a similar result and, as befits major elections, will have a higher turnout. A taste for democracy has come and will remain.
The issue of the boat people is outstanding and must be addressed. At present, 21,000 migrants remain in camps waiting to be repatriated—some will go voluntarily, some will not. I made a point of visiting the camps after reports of human rights abuse. The allegations were not borne out, save for the fact that when injuries occurred, it was because fighting had broken out between the inmates.
Some refugees had been in the camps for five years. Children had been born there and knew no other life. I had total freedom to mix and talk to the Vietnamese. I concluded that they were largely economic refugees, not political refugees. The programme of flying them home has now been streamlined. Only yesterday, Wednesday, another 44 departed. Another 17,000, who have been able to prove that they had been victims of political violence, have been granted asylum and are now in the process of being resettled in other countries.
I can hardly blame the boat people for initially trying to reach Hong Kong. When people are desperate, they try anything. But it must be said that Vietnam has changed dramatically, not just by the year, but by the month. Economic progress has been enormous, as I discovered when I flew to Vietnam after my visit to Hong Kong. Returning home may be difficult for the migrants, but it will not be nearly as arduous and tough as it was under the former, rigid rule of communism. I therefore support the Hong Kong Government's efforts on repatriation. It would be cruel indeed to leave the refugees to the uncertainties of Chinese control.
Another matter that I came across was that of the 52 or 53 war widows who have been refused full British passports. Their husbands served and died in the British Army. It is hurtful that the Government cannot grant them full British citizenship. They deserve sympathy—a special stamp in their current papers entitling them to come to the United Kingdom is not the real thing and makes them feel like second-class citizens. I understand that their situation needs primary legislation, but is it beyond the realms of possibility to look more positively at their cases? As we
1066
approach VE day and the spirit of reconciliation, surely that is one case that we should not pigeonhole as being too difficult to tackle. I pay tribute to Jack Edwards, an old prisoner of war, who has fought so hard on their behalf.
I conclude with the view that, come 1997, we should feel proud that we have more than honoured our obligations. We shall have strived to the end; I trust that the handover arrangements will be complete—I know that it is a race against time. We shall regretfully have to accept that we have not been able to secure the through train on democracy that we would have hoped, but we shall leave Hong Kong with pride and honour. We also know that by playing fair by Hong Kong we helped to give Hong Kong a chance to contribute its uniqueness to China.
9.18 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: I am sure that all of us would agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the standard of debate for the past five or so hours has been high. If the debate is being watched on television in Hong Kong, it will certainly prove that the House of Commons has not lost its reputation as a deliberating Chamber.
The significance of the debate for China was highlighted by the right hon. Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). It was fascinating to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South talk about his first speech 32 years ago, when he talked on the subject of Hong Kong.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) about the position and importance of Taiwan not just in the context of this debate—clearly, what happens in Hong Kong will be watched very closely by those in Taiwan and in China itself—but because my predecessor in this place, Leo Abse, was one of the first Members of the House of Commons to visit Taiwan and to take an active interest in that country. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I come to the debate today as my party's spokesman on Northern Ireland and that significant and very important peace process which will dominate the proceedings in the House for the next couple of years. However, the importance of Hong Kong in international as well as British affairs in the next two years cannot be underestimated. In the debate on the Queen's Speech in November last year, the Foreign Secretary referred to Britain's links with Hong Kong—the 3.5 million British passport holders, the 1,000 British companies and the £90 billion in British investment.
But they are not the only links that Britain has with Hong Kong. I suspect that there is hardly a family in Britain which does not have a family or a friendship link with someone who has lived or worked in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very much a part of our lives. Michael Yahuda, a distinguished academic with a wealth of knowledge in such matters, recently wrote:
"The Hong Kong negotiations constitute, without a doubt, the most important set of bilateral negotiations in which Britain has been engaged since the Falklands War".

1067
The consequences of any failure in the negotiations in the next two years would be dramatic, not least for the industrious, educated and highly productive Hong Kong people who, in this of all years, we remember withstood four years of Japanese occupation. Another writer, Gerald Segal, wrote last year:
"The real Hong Kong crisis will begin in 1995–96, some 12 to 18 months before the date of the official handover, and it might even coincide with the next British election".
Of course, it will coincide with that election.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East made the very telling point that perhaps some of the problems in understanding the matter arise out of the differing attitudes, styles and languages of the Chinese and British negotiators. China viewed Governor Patten's proposal as a U-turn. However, we are given to understand that the two countries' diplomatic styles are very different indeed. China adopts struggle diplomacy and deals in agreements which, to us, seem broad and somewhat vaguely worded. Our tradition favours much greater detail. That is why in my view—I am certain that it is my party's view also—there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Patten went to Hong Kong seeking a confrontation with the Chinese. I believe that part of the problem derives from the clash of styles and political cultures of the two sides.
The right hon. Member for Guildford chaired the. Foreign Affairs Committee and it is important to record our thanks to the Committee for producing a highly instructive and extremely valuable report. It said:
"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Britain and China have, throughout all the negotiations since the Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, been looking at its provisions through differently coloured spectacles."
I suspect that there is a great deal of truth in that statement.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members referred to the incident at Tiananmen square and the effects of that tragedy. We all viewed it, correctly, as a great blow to democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, in China the effect was also significant because it deepened suspicions about democracy, which is now seen as a source of instability and a threat to the Chinese regime. It also led to an increased demand for some sort of proper democracy in Hong Kong. I believe that China had agreed initially to some sort of democracy in the territory. That is enshrined in the joint declaration and in the Basic Law. The two Governments committed themselves to effect what they called a
"smooth transfer of Government in 1997".
The Foreign Affairs Committee report described Governor Patten's actions as perfectly legal in international law and said that there was nothing improper or untoward about them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South and the hon. Members for Harrow, East and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, democracy has increased considerably over the past couple of years. In the early days, the people of Hong Kong declined to agitate for greater democracy because, I suspect, they feared the reaction of China and were busy making money, but Tiananmen square changed all that. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, they have developed a taste for democracy. Although the recent local government
1068
elections were not exactly successful in terms of turnout, they were a start. Although the new breed of democratic politicians in Hong Kong have had only about 13 years of experience in democracy and government, they will doubtless wish to continue that experience.
It is a great tragedy that the "through train", which has nothing to do with the train to which the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred, the great Robert Adley or an interest in Chinese trains, will be derailed and democratic institutions may be disbanded after 1997. The "through train" was one of the most important aspects of the original agreement and, if we are to take his view seriously, it is tragic that the Chinese ambassador, in this building yesterday, talked about dismantling all those democratic institutions after 1997.
The right hon. Member for Guildford and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly referred to the role of the Chinese Communist party in Hong Kong after 1997. It is not the same as having just another party in that territory. Are we to see a replication of what has occurred in China, where that country's constitution hardly recognises it even though it is all-powerful in China? We know that the head of the New China News Agency is effectively the head of the Communist party of China in Hong Kong. The Government must deal with that over the next 800 days.
What will happen to the Hong Kong civil service? Will civil servants have to pass some sort of loyalty test in order to be employed after 1 July 1997? The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South and for Rotherham were right to refer to the problem of human rights in China. No one who represents a constituency in this House of Commons, with all our traditions, could turn a blind eye to the problems of human rights and democracy in China. That matter intensely worries people in Hong Kong as much as it disturbs us. The rule of law must be retained at all costs. It is the fundamental principle that underlies all institutions in Hong Kong.
I hope that when the Minister of State winds up, he will refer to the points made by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about international human rights conventions and say where the Government stand on those. The Committee rightly argued for an independent human rights watchdog and said that the Hong Kong Government should be supported in strengthening human rights before 1997. The problem is that China has not ratified those international conventions. Is some bilateral agreement between the UK Government and China sufficient to ensure that the rights enshrined in the international covenants are applied in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997?
It is important to ensure that, after 1997, the Court of Final Appeal is seen internationally as an independent and proper judiciary which the people of Hong Kong can feel confident will safeguard their freedoms and rights.
The right hon. Member for Guildford and my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston and for Ilford, South mentioned the plight of the widows of ex-service men, a matter that has still not been addressed. I believe that there are only 52 such people. Although the matter concerns the Home Office, I hope that when he winds up the Minister of State will say what he believes is the case and whether the Home Office will take another look at it.

1069
Reference was made to the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. In total, I believe that about 7,000 people could be stranded and stateless after 1 July 1997. In response to an intervention, the Foreign Secretary said that the matter had been decided but Earl Ferrers, who was a Home Office Minister, said on 15 July 1993 that
"if, against all expectation, members of that group"—
the ethnic minority
"were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the government of the day"—
I assume that he was referring to his own party although it might well be mine—
"would be expected to consider, with considerable and particular sympathy, their case for admission to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 415.]
That matter needs to be cleared up in the next two years because thousands of people in Hong Kong come into that category.
There is, of course, uncertainty about the future leadership of China. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and others referred to what is termed the "impending succession" question. The Chinese ambassador said yesterday at a meeting in the House that there was no problem and that the matter had been settled but, clearly, when someone as significant as Deng dies, it is bound to have an enormous influence on China and Hong Kong but not, I suspect, on the future of these particular negotiations.
Similarly, the role played by the United States of America has been exaggerated. It clearly wants to trade in the huge Chinese market. It is rather interesting to note that a headline in this week's International Herald Tribune stated:
"Trade threat removed, human rights situation worsens".
There is a telling contradiction in the two phrases. The European Union is hardly better. Germany, for instance, is anxious to trade with China and Chancellor Kohl visited China in 1993.
Some believe, then, that the prospects over the next two years and beyond could be bleak, that an elected assembly, which would by then have been working for two years, will come to an end, that we shall be at constant loggerheads with the People's Republic of China, that difficulties will occur with human rights and citizenship, and that trade between this country and China will worsen. I do not think that that scenario is likely. There are grounds for optimism.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred to the airport which is well under way. It is one of the most significant economic developments in not only China or Hong Kong but the world. The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to the thriving Hong Kong economy. It is still the eighth largest trading economy on earth, still the world's busiest container port, Asia's main destination for tourism and one of the world's largest financial centres.
In March this year an opinion poll conducted by the Hong Kong Government found that 62 per cent. of respondents believed that the colony would remain stable. One can add to that the fact that some moderate voices are emerging in China itself. In a speech on Hong Kong and its relationship with China, a member of the Chinese politburo, Li Ruihan, said:
1070
"When you do not understand something you may damage it, by trying to improve it."
Things are changing in China itself.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup talked of the need to be positive in the next 800 days. Last night the Chines ambassador talked of co-operation and consultation replacing confrontation. We must all ensure that our efforts are aimed at bringing about stability and harmony after 1997. That must be the most important single objective of all hon. Members and of those who govern Hong Kong.
9.34 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment and on his speech—the first of many that, I hope, we shall hear him make from the Opposition Front Bench.
The debate has been a true reflection of the range and diversity of Britain's connections with China and Hong Kong. Having participated from the Back Benches in most of the debates on Hong Kong in years gone by, I welcome the deep knowledge and understanding shown by right hon. and hon. Members, especially members of the Select Committee so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
I have been greatly encouraged by the support from both sides of the House for the thrust of the Government's policies on China and Hong Kong, which was reflected in some extremely knowledgeable and, in some cases, distinguished speeches. That broad measure of bipartisan support is an important source of legitimate strength for Ministers and the Governor in their dealings with the Chinese Government and all shades of opinion in Hong Kong.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford spoke eloquently of the dramatic changes in east Asia and their consequences for the United Kingdom. China, of course, is at the heart of those changes.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described the strategic importance for Britain of our relationship with China. China has opened its doors to international trade and investment; it has allowed in the free market. It is now reaping the benefits of a booming economy. Of course there are problems and there will be more changes, perhaps to the system of government in China, but I do not share the fashionable pessimism that China may disintegrate, nor do I believe that anyone can turn back the clock on the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping.
We must continue to develop the profound and realistic relationship with China for the 21st century for which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called last November. Nothing less would do justice to the interests and responsibilities that Britain and China share as leading players on the world's political and economic stages. I am grateful for the endorsement that the House has given our efforts to maintain the momentum of that relationship.
When I visited Peking last July, I took part in the ministerial dialogue with China, which is an important part of our policy. I was able to see for myself, as have other hon. Members, the benefits that the open-door policy has created for the Chinese people and the

1071
opportunities that it has opened up for British traders and investors. I can assure hon. Members who have not been to China recently that if the statistics of China's recent economic expansion are impressive, the reality is even more startling.
I believe that there is no sensible alternative for Britain to a policy of engagement with China across the range of our common interests, to which right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his opening speech.
Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his very thoughtful speech, echoed the concern about human rights expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that we do not seek to lecture or impose extraneous values on the Chinese people, but we are deeply concerned about the abuse of basic human rights which have been accepted as universal. The protection and advancement of those rights must be a cornerstone of our policy.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) seemed to think that the Opposition care more about freedom and human rights in China than others. I assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. We regularly raise those matters with the Chinese authorities. My noble Friend Lord Howe and his delegation visited China and made practical proposals for improvement that we urged the Chinese authorities to implement. We joined our European Union partners in raising those matters with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Mr. MacShane: Can the Minister name the last Chinese citizen about whom human rights matters were raised?
Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave four names to Mr. Qian Qichen last week, and I did the same last year. That is a continuing process.
We aim not at confrontation but at establishing a calm and serious dialogue with the Chinese authorities. Only through dialogue can we hope to influence their practices and to encourage reforms.
Several hon. Members referred to Tibet, where everything is extremely unsatisfactory. We are deeply concerned about human rights abuses in Tibet and threats to Tibetan identity. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have met the Dalai Lama, who is a most distinguished spiritual figure. We have urged the Chinese authorities to commence a dialogue With the Tibetans, without preconditions. I urge them again to do so—I am sure with the support of the House.
I do not want to give the House the impression that all our contacts with China are confrontational. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) for drawing attention to the valuable co-operative work of the British Council in China and Hong Kong, which is making an important contribution to our trade and cultural objectives. I assure my right hon. Friend that that work will continue to have our full support.
I assure the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that we are conscious of the importance of promoting knowledge of China among young people. Many British universities already run
1072
Chinese courses, often including time spent in Chinese institutions such as Peking and Shanghai universities and Taiwan. As China's economic and political importance grows, more students will be attracted to acquire a deeper knowledge of China.
My hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made powerful pleas to consider our links with Taiwan. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby drew attention to Taiwan's impressive economic success, high education standards and high savings rates. Equally welcome is Taiwan's steady development of democratic structures. I agree that those achievements deserve to be better known in this country.
Although we have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we actively promote economic, cultural and educational links. Eight British Ministers have paid private visits to Taiwan to pursue those objectives. British organisations in Taiwan have expanded and reorganised in the British trade and cultural office, which was until recently directed by Mr. Philip Morrice—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Corby paid generous tribute. That office now has seven front-line commercial staff dedicated to helping British business men.
The Government already review links with Taiwan. We are determined to take all practical steps to expand our cultural and commercial interests there, and the record speaks for itself. Expanding exports, 9,000 students, and nine out of 10 manufacturing investments in Europe from Taiwan come to the UK: all that is impressive and welcome progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred to the issuing of visas. One consequence of our policy of not recognising Taiwan as a state is that we cannot recognise the travel documents issued there as passports. Our practice, which is by no means unique, is to place our visas on a separate certificate of identity. I do not think that that can be seen as a serious impediment to the growth of our commercial links with Taiwan, which are flourishing, as are Taiwan's links with Japan, which has the same practice on visas. That practice in no way retards the issue of visas through the British trade and cultural office in Taipei, which is normally done within 72 hours. In view of the interest in the House tonight, I can assure my right hon. Friend that our minds are not closed. We keep the matter under review, particularly in the light of practice elsewhere.
Hong Kong is, of course, at the heart of our relations with China. I have known Hong Kong well for most of my adult life and have a deep and abiding affection for the territory and its people, as have—as we have seen tonight—many other hon. Members. We are very alive to our continuing responsibilities towards the 3.5 million Hong Kong people who will continue to be entitled to a British passport. For reasons of self-interest and of decency and honour, the Government's first priority will continue to be to do their best by Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's continued prosperity and stability are also very much in the interests of the People's Republic of China. We do not always see eye to eye on all aspects of the future of Hong Kong. Sometimes we have disagreed quite sharply, but we both share a strong interest in Hong Kong's success beyond 1997, on the basis of the joint declaration, to which we are both committed.

1073
Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to the development of representative government in Hong Kong. Nearly all, including, notably, the hon. Member for Livingston, approved of what we had done. The hon. Gentleman suggested, as have others, that the development may have been a little too late. I was not a member of the Government between 1974 and 1979, or, indeed, between 1970 and 1974, but I am sure that those who were responsible in those days had good reasons for their decisions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was sceptical about the development of representative government, but I cannot help noting that he has not always been so. When the House debated the joint declaration in December 1984, on the development of representative government within Hong Kong, he said:
"I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that we must do our utmost to achieve proper, working representative government there by the time the handover takes place, but I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about not rushing things. With only 12 years to develop representative government, the question of rushing or not rushing does not arise. What I believe will do more harm than anything is the suggestion, as the tone of the White Paper implies, that we are doing this rather grudgingly."
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
"Far greater than any danger of haste is the danger of not having fully representative working government with experience by the time the handover takes place."—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 405.]
In fact, since we started negotiating with the Chinese early in the 1980s we have always proceeded in developing representative government in Hong Kong, in line with Hong Kong opinion. As the hon. Member for Livingston said, that opinion has been shaped by two major events: the negotiation of the joint declaration and what happened in China in 1989. The joint declaration provides that the Legislative Council shall be constituted by elections. The Basic Law is clear about the pace of increase in directly elected Members—20 in the first legislature, 24 in the second and 30 in the third—but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made clear, we are now where we are.
There is no good reason for China to dismantle the electoral arrangements, which so clearly command the confidence of the Hong Kong community—as the turnout in elections hitherto has shown—the confidence of this House and the confidence of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which went into the matter thoroughly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to the 1990 exchanges on constitutional development. The exchanges between Britain and China in early 1990 did not add up to an understanding about political developments in Hong Kong. We released the texts of the relevant exchanges in 1992. They showed that there was no such agreement, that we were dissatisfied with China's proposals for the number of directly elected seats on LegCo and that there was no consensus between us on the composition of the election committee.
The exchanges were inconclusive and, therefore, left us free to make our own proposals, consistent with the Basic Law, the joint declaration and the agreements and understandings between us—and that we did, for discussion. It is a matter for regret that after 17 rounds of talks it was impossible to reach agreement.
There is no hard evidence of China discriminating against British business interests. British exports to China increased by 72 per cent. in 1993 and by a further 14 per
1074
cent. in 1994. This country is the largest European Union investor in the PRC. Vice-Premier Qian Qichen only last week underlined to us the value of our bilateral trade links and the complementarity of the two economies. Chinese leaders have continually emphasised in public that there would be no discrimination against British business. To do so would be outside the terms of the China-European Union co-operation agreements and the spirit of China's World Trade Organisation application. I hope that no one in the House will accuse those Chinese leaders of bad faith when they continually repeat that there will be no discrimination against British business.
The hon. Member for Rotherham suggested that the Governor should be here for this debate, as the Minister for Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, I suppose, the Government would be surprised to hear the Governor described as a Minister; indeed, he might have difficulty gaining access to the House. However, I want to take this opportunity to join in the tributes paid to the Governor from both sides of the House. He is an enormously distinguished Governor of Hong Kong—the best whom we could possibly have.
The Government fully support the Governor in carrying out his important task. I know that the House joins me in extending support to him. He has been performing his duties in Hong Kong with the skill and the energy that we would all expect of him. Indeed, earlier today he was doing his democratic duty by answering questions in LegCo.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup, for Mid-Sussex and for Guildford and the hon. Member for Livingston all mentioned the Court of Final Appeal. We have always said that we want to establish it on the basis of agreement with China. Expert talks on the Bill are under way in Hong Kong, both today and tomorrow. We continue to urge China to give its early support to the Bill, which would implement the 1991 agreement. We are going the extra mile in an attempt to reach agreement, but we and Hong Kong cannot wait for ever for it to be enacted.
The hon. Member for Livingston expressed concern about wastage in the public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) expressed concern about corruption in Hong Kong, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and others. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the integrity and efficiency of the public services in Hong Kong, especially the civil service and police. I reassure the House that wastage rates are low, but a number of officers may leave the civil service before 1997 owing to localisation, and others in Hong Kong will be entitled to retire before 30 June 1997. The Hong Kong Government have made plans to ensure that any vacancies that arise are filled by capable and experienced officers.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) rightly urged us not to leave behind in Hong Kong emergency powers that a future regime could abuse. He will be pleased to know that the Hong Kong Government are reviewing their emergency powers as part of the on-going review of laws that might affect press freedom. Those laws involve complex issues and need careful study, but the Hong Kong Government are committed to completing the exercise before 30 June 1997.

1075
Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, and the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), raised the application to Hong Kong of the international covenants on civil and political rights, and on economic, social and cultural rights. We are clear that China has an obligation under the joint declaration to ensure that provisions of the international covenants, as they apply to Hong Kong, remain in force after 1997. The obligation includes the requirement to report to the United Nations.
We have made our views clear to China. In November, we explained our position to the committee on economic, social and cultural rights. One way to implement the reporting obligations would be for China to accede to the covenants in respect of the whole of its territory. We would welcome Chinese accession and we have said so to China. Alternatively, it would be feasible for China to assume the reporting obligations under the covenants in respect of Hong Kong only. We shall continue to work for a satisfactory resolution of that issue.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the Hong Kong Government are committed to an on-going programme to amend laws that affect press freedom. We support that commitment, as do my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and others. Nine provisions of three Ordinances on broadcasting have been amended. One provision of the summary offences Ordinance has also been amended. A Bill has been introduced in LegCo to amend seven more provisions in two Ordinances. Out of 41 legislative provisions that needed amendment, the Hong Kong Government have already acted on 17, and amendments to a further 11 provisions in seven Ordinances will be introduced in May.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and the hon. Member for Ilford, South
1076
mentioned ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I assure the House that the position of ethnic minority British dependent territory citizens who have the right of abode only in Hong Kong is secure. The joint declaration on the Basic Law provides for their right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. The Government have given the commitment that if, against all expectations, members of the non-Chinese ethnic communities ever come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and have nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy any request for admission to the UK.
Other hon. Members raised the issue of the wives and widows of ex-service men in Hong Kong. The Government recognise the special contribution made by ex-service men; hence the special arrangements made to allow their spouses, to whom the Home Secretary has written individually, unrestricted access to the UK. No scope exists under nationality legislation to grant them citizenship while they remain in Hong Kong.
The next few years will be momentous ones for China and Hong Kong. For both, they will be years of transition. In China, there will be political and economic changes that will determine that country's course and character in the early decades of the next century. The world will be watching to see how the high promise of "one country, two systems" is turned into reality.
I have no doubt that Hong Kong's continuing prosperity and stability are there to be secured, but it will be for the present and future sovereign powers, separately and jointly working more closely together, to achieve that. Her Majesty's Government intend to co-operate fully with China in bringing about a smooth transition. We intend to stick by Hong Kong through the next 800 days and beyond. We shall remain committed to Hong Kong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has said, up to and beyond the transfer of sovereignty.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Education (Staffordshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10 pm
Mr. William Cash: The issue of education is of critical importance to the future prospects of our children and to the quality of our national life for generations to come, both economically and culturally. It should not be used as a political football.
I have asked for the debate because we need to set the framework of a balanced analysis of the state of education in my constituency. Because it is a function of Staffordshire county council, the circumstances of my constituents are determined by the education policy decided by the Labour county council in the broader national education context.
There are many excellent teachers and schools in my constituency, and we must do all in our power to offer pupils the best education that can be provided, with the help of parents, teachers, head teachers and governors.
I do not disguise my concern, which I have made clear in the past, about the way in which standard spending assessments and area cost adjustments work to the disadvantage of some counties such as Staffordshire. The 1994 new earnings survey suggests that average overall' earnings in the south-east are 24 per cent. higher than they are in the west midlands. Within the south-east, earnings are higher still in Greater London, but, even excluding London, earnings in the rest of the south-east are 12 per cent. higher than in the west midlands.
One of the factors used in calculating the standard spending assessment is the area cost adjustment, which assumes that authorities have to match the rates of pay in competing occupations if they are to recruit and retain the staff whom they require. For example, the standard spending assessment for Surrey, whose population is about the same as that of Staffordshire, is increased by £60.7 million.
It seems reasonable to point out that there is a common pay spine for teachers throughout the country, and there is little competition between their employers and those in the general labour market. Similarly, people pay about the same in interest rates and mortgages, although houses generally are less expensive in the west midlands than in the south-east. I cannot suppose that food and other such items cost less in supermarkets and shops in the west midlands than in the country as a whole.
According to an independent analysis that I have received, details of unit cost expenditure in schools for 1992–93 suggest that teaching staff costs in Staffordshire are no lower than in the counties outside London that benefit from the area cost adjustment. It seems that the balance between counties such as Surrey and counties such as Staffordshire needs to be corrected.
There is also the question of the broad link between the public sector borrowing requirement and the SSAs. While we were suffering the worst effects of the exchange rate mechanism, to which I was so opposed, our PSBR rose to £50 billion. As the Government wish to reduce the PSBR, they also seek to limit public expenditure. Hence, control of public expenditure is mirrored in a tight settlement for local authorities. However, I was heartened
1078
to note that the Secretary of State for Education recently gave a strong hint that there will be extra money for schools in the November Budget, so things seem to be looking brighter.
Staffordshire county council recently gave us a final comparison for SSA per secondary pupil in 1994–95. That gave a figure of £2,679 for Surrey, including an additional area cost adjustment of 11.6 per cent., whereas the figure for Staffordshire was £2,398 per secondary pupil. Staffordshire has no area cost adjustment, and has a capping limit of only 0.11 per cent. above its SSA. It concluded that spending more than its SSA on education could be achieved only by spending less on other services—or, crucially, the council admits that it could spend more on education by using reserves and balances.
We are given to understand that in Staffordshire there are reserves of about £60 million. Those are uncapped, and it seems that they could be used for education. Why are the reserves so high, and why are they not used to prevent the prospective loss of teachers from the schools in my constituency?
The director of education recently wrote a letter saying that £7.5 million from the reserves would be used. Why is more not being used? He sent me a table showing the schools in my constituency which he says are likely to lose staff. Those include the loss of 1.9 teachers at St. Lawrence, Gnosall, 1.6 at Tillington Manor county school, 1.3 at Blessed William Howard and as many as 5.3 in Sir Graham Balfour. Those and other losses seem avoidable.
Staffordshire's education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 has been set at £348.79 million, which is 1.2 per cent. higher than the equivalent figure in 1994–95, in line with the national average increase. Under local management of schools, Staffordshire is obliged to delegate control of much of the money that it allocates for schools to the governing bodies of those schools. That is done under the general schools budget. In 1994–95, Staffordshire's GSB was the worst of any county. This is unacceptable.
We also find that we have the third lowest amount of money delegated to school level of any county, with an aggregated schools budget per pupil of £1,570, compared to £1,700 in Surrey. It seems that the county council is allocating too much for non-teaching matters. Is it possible that the county is putting money into reserves for transfer to Stoke-on-Trent when local government reorganisation takes place? Does it not still have a wholly disproportionate amount of money allocated to nursery school education in Stoke-on-Trent compared to the rest of the county put together?
Some years ago, I raised that matter with the district auditor, and I discovered that the differential is as much as 5:1, which he strongly criticised as unfair to parts of the county such as my constituency. I hope that taking Stoke out of the county, for which I have long campaigned and which is due to happen thanks to Government policy, will help to redress the unfairness that was revealed.
Even allowing for the problems posed by the SSA and the area cost adjustment, there can be no excuse for the deplorable results and pupil-teacher ratios in Staffordshire. In 1994, only 38.1 per cent. of 15–year-olds in Staffordshire obtained five or more GCSE grades A to C, compared with the national average of 43.3 per cent.

1079
The performance at A-level was also below the national average. We have the second worst pupil-teacher ratio of any county, which in January 1994 was 19.75.
In the latest survey of counties showing those who have left school with no results at all, Staffordshire ranked the fifth worst. For class sizes, Staffordshire is below average. Its primary schools have an average class size of 27.7 children, whereas in England as a whole it is 26.9. In secondary schools, the average is 22.1 children, whereas for the whole of England it is 21.4. Is it the case that the county pursues a policy of hardly ever, if at all, sacking bad teachers?
The Labour county council has much to answer for. It simply is not possible for it to explain all that away by reference to the SSA and area cost adjustment. The local government elections on 4 May may be elections for boroughs and districts, but it should be remembered that the county, the Labour county council, is responsible for 90 per cent. of the council tax bill which is demanded of our ratepayers and our voters.
The voters should not overlook that, especially as the excellent Conservative Stafford borough council is reducing its share of the amount that it calls on for the council tax, whereas the county, the Labour county council, is increasing its amount of precept by £17, and the education costs of the county are approximately 70. per cent. of its overall budget.
I am seeking meetings with the county education officers, parents, teachers and heads to address the crucial issues affecting my constituents and to try to work out a balanced and objective solution based on facts and analysis. I well remember that, in the run-up to the 1992 general election—my colleagues and other Conservative Members of Parliament in Staffordshire remember it extremely well too, because some of them received as many as 2,000 letters—Opposition parties created great fear throughout my constituency and elsewhere about school budgets and loss of teachers.
Yet, at the end of the financial year in question, the county had £10 million left over in its education budget. It cannot be allowed to do that again. It must use the money it has in reserves and otherwise to better effect. I await its response with interest, and that of the Minister.
What none of us wants, and what must not be allowed to occur, is a spate of unnecessary and damaging strikes. I appeal to all those in my constituency to look at the facts, weigh up the arguments and press the Labour county council to release more money from its reserves.
I shall continue to press the Government to revise the standard spending assessment, and I appeal to the teachers to repudiate strike action or similar activities that would damage education in my constituency.
10.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has done a service to his constituents and to everyone living in Staffordshire in drawing the attention of the House to his concerns about education in the county. He was supported, albeit in the silent role befitting his senior Government Whip position, by our hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire,
1080
South-East (Mr. Lightbown), although I could sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was drawing great strength from that strong, brooding, silent presence.
In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford did well towards the end of his speech to remind the House of the track record of Staffordshire some few years ago. In the words of one or more of my Home Office equivalent Ministers, it has "previous" in this respect, and it was wise of my hon. Friend to have put that on record.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the level of resources made available by Government for education, so I make it clear from the start that, as far as education expenditure is concerned, Staffordshire county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its priorities between, and within, services. The council has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much is spent elsewhere.
My hon. Friend said that Staffordshire has been forced to cut millions of pounds from its education budget in the current financial year. There is no reason why that should happen. The Government have provided for Staffordshire's education standard spending assessment to increase by 1.2 per cent. this year and, under the capping rules, it can spend 0.5 per cent. more in 1995–96 than in 1994–95. In total, Staffordshire is able to spend more than £582 million on all its services.
What does talk about cuts mean? The county council is not cutting what it is spending: it is drawing up a shopping list of additional spending and then cutting back on what it would ideally like to spend, if it could buy all the items on that list. Everyone in the public sector and in business faces the same problem, and the solution is to become more efficient. To say that there must be cover for all salary, price and volume changes is as inappropriate as to say that there is no scope for efficiency gains.
It is not unreasonable for Ministers to expect authorities to help fund education by becoming more efficient. Authorities continue to spend vast amounts of money on running their education departments. The recent Audit Commission report found scope for saving more than £500 million on the pay bill of local authorities' administrative and clerical staff. In addition, in a previous report, it found scope for saving more than £30 million by rationalising special schools. It is also not unreasonable for the Government to expect schools to use their balances or reserves, as my hon. Friend said, where appropriate, to help to offset the cost of providing education.
No information on individual school balances at the end of 1994–95 is yet available, but at the end of 1993–94, primary schools in Staffordshire had balances that amounted, in total, to 5.03 per cent. of their budget shares, while secondary schools had balances of 3.07 per cent. Although I accept that those are lower than the national averages in each case, in total they are still substantial amounts. Schools need to consider what they should sensibly hold as a result of planning, not simply by chance. They cannot easily complain that they were underfunded during that time.
If reserves are not available for particular schools, they need to pay special attention to their management of resources. They may, however, also wish to suggest to the authority that its local management of schools scheme might be amended for future years in order to change the distribution of funds.

1081
Authorities have scope for efficiency savings by seeking a better balance between supply and demand in school places. The level of surplus capacity across the country is still too high, and there is therefore still scope for authorities to remove surplus places. In Staffordshire's case, the authority reported more than 20,000 empty places in primary schools in January 1994. That is nearly one fifth of the total number of primary places in the authority. I accept that in Staffordshire, as in other authorities, not all of those places are removable. Some are needed for rising pupil numbers; to allow for parental preference; and to ensure that schools are accessible, particularly in rural areas.
Even allowing for those factors, however, the level of surplus in Staffordshire is projected to remain high. On that basis, we are discussing with the authority what scope there might be to reduce surplus capacity, and to do so in ways that could release funds to be spent on pupils and not on unnecessary buildings. I know that my hon. Friends who represent Staffordshire understand and accept that approach.
I know that Staffordshire schools, like schools in other areas, will be concerned about meeting the cost of the teachers' pay award. The Government accepted the teachers' award of 2.7 per cent. on the recommendation of the independent School Teachers' Review Body. The review body acknowledged the fact that financial provision had been set on the basis that pay increases should be offset, or more than offset, by efficiency gains and increased productivity. For instance, authorities that make savings on some services can spend more on others without infringing the capping criteria.
The Government have acknowledged that the current settlement is a tough one, but many authorities have been able to achieve an increase in their budgets—including all Conservative ones—which matches or outstrips the teachers' pay award. They have said that they are meeting the pay award in full.
It is worth making the point that, although a number of local authorities claim that they cannot afford the teachers' pay award, they reached a voluntary pay settlement of more than 2 per cent. for clerical and manual staff. Of course I acknowledge that the award will place local authority budgets under pressure. The House will recognise, however, that local authorities are large and financially complex organisations, and they have a variety of means to realise the efficiency gains that are needed.
The Government consider that teachers thoroughly deserve this increase, in recognition of the excellent work they carry out in raising standards in our schools. Governors, teachers and parents, as well as the Government, are entitled to look to local authorities to give priority to front-line services, such as schools. I hope that Staffordshire county council and all others will do so.
During the consultations on teachers' pay for this year, many people expressed anxiety about the level of funding for schools next year—1996–97. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has said, that is an issue that Ministers collectively will be considering in the next public expenditure round, leading up to decisions to be announced in November.
1082
It is, of course, not possible to predict the outcome, and inevitably there will be many competing claims. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said recently: she has listened carefully, and will take account of all the arguments and representations made to her about the funding of schools against the background of the Prime Minister's public assurance that education will continue to be at the top of our priorities as the economy delivers further growth.
My hon. Friend properly highlighted Staffordshire's SSA, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not refer to it. I am certainly aware that Staffordshire's SSA per pupil is lower than the national average. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the SSA system sets out to provide funding for a standard level of service nationwide, Simple comparisons with other LEAs—even the LEA of my birth, Surrey—are not appropriate, because the costs of providing a standard level of education throughout the country vary.
Some of the factors that need to be taken into account are the costs of educating children in sparsely populated districts, the costs of educating children in districts that are socially or economically disadvantaged, and the large labour costs in London and the south-east. It is inevitable, therefore, that not all authorities will have such large costs, or indeed special circumstances, as other LEAs. Therefore, the poundage per pupil varies from LEA to LEA.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to the area cost adjustment. Coincidentally, as I told the House last week in a debate of some similarity, that is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the SSA system, although it allocates only about 4 per cent. of the national total of education SSAs.
None of the local authority associations questions the need for an area cost adjustment; only the way that it works is at issue. It is intended not to favour, so to speak, specific authorities, but to compensate them for the necessary additional labour and other costs that they must meet in delivering a common standard of service. That means not only teachers' salary costs, but all staffing costs. In addition, the costs of rates are greater in the south-east and in London, and LEAs in those regions have even argued that there should also be an uplift for greater rental costs.
If it is any consolation to my hon. Friend and his constituents, as he will have gathered from that last comment, the area cost adjustment is as unpopular in London and the south-east on the ground that it delivers less than it should, as it is obviously unpopular in regions such as my hon. Friend's for the reverse reason.
My hon. Friend is also rightly worried that standards of education should be maintained and improved. There is no evidence that a small SSA per pupil affects the standard of education or the ability of an LEA to deliver that education. For example, in Stockport, which receives less per pupil in its SSA than Staffordshire, 48.6 per cent. of 15–year-olds gained five or more GCSEs at grades A to C—that is the 11th highest result nationally. Staffordshire, by comparison, as my hon. Friend said, is ranked 58th, with 38.1 per cent. of 15–year-olds gaining five or more A to C grades.
There is a similar pattern with post—16 results. In Stockport, the average point score for pupils taking two or more A or AS-levels is 18.8, which is the third

1083
greatest nationally. By comparison, Staffordshire is ranked 32nd, with an average point score of 15.7, which is below the national average of 16.7.
I would not wish to imply, and I know that my hon. Friend would not assume it from my comments, that in some way uniquely Staffordshire should be linked with Stockport. My purpose in linking the two LEAs was to draw specific and complete attention to the erroneous belief, fostered especially on the Opposition Benches, that there is a direct correlation between money spent and education results achieved.
My hon. Friend made passing reference to Stoke, which I recognise will shortly be in transit from the warm embrace of Staffordshire. He might concede, although I do not seek that he should do so tonight, that Stoke-on-Trent is a region of significant social and economic deprivation. For many years, Governments have sought to encourage authorities to give priority to deprived regions in determining their priorities for expansion of nursery provision. I can confirm that the level of nursery provision in Staffordshire does not affect its SSA—the SSAs are calculated on the basis of pupil numbers, not nursery provision.
I shall now discuss the local management of schools in Staffordshire. As hon. Members will know, local education authorities have a great deal of discretion in the way in which they arrange their LMS schemes. It is important to realise what LMS is about. It is not about the total spending on schools. It is about the distribution of that expenditure—the balance between centrally retained items and funds delegated to schools, and the distribution of those delegated funds between individual schools.
I suspect that there is not an hon. Member in the House who has not received letters from this or that school whose complaint, when analysed, is against the nature of the local LMS scheme administered by the education authority, rather than exclusively, as the writer thought when he wrote the letter, against the nature of this or that Government decision. I have received many such letters.
How much Staffordshire spends on its schools is a decision for the LEA, to be taken in the light of its other commitments, both in education and in other services. This year, Staffordshire's general schools budget amounted to £342 million, equal to £2,124 per pupil. National comparisons are not yet available for 1995–96, but it is true that in 1994–95 the general schools budget per pupil for Staffordshire, which then stood at £2,120, was the lowest of any shire LEA, and one of the lowest in the country.
1084
However, hon. Members should be wary of those comparisons. The size of the general school budget per pupil is affected by many factors, such as the proportion of sixth formers in LEA schools and the capital spending needs of local authorities.
Another matter of acute interest to schools is the proportion of funding delegated to them. In 1995–96, Staffordshire will be delegating to schools 92.8 per cent. of its potential schools budget, which, on the information currently available to me, is a little above the national average and ahead of the required minimum of 85 per cent.
What does that delegation represent in terms of budget share per pupil? Obviously, that varies from school to school; all LMS schemes direct funding between schools according to various factors which measure perceived need, which can result in marked differences in funding per pupil. On average, the budget share per pupil this year is £1,286 for primary pupils, £1,768 for secondary pupils and £6,267 for special schools. All those show a modest increase compared with 1994–95.
I mentioned at the outset that I thought that my hon. Friend had done a first-class job. It is particularly relevant that his debate takes place in what, in many parts of the country, is the run-up to local elections. I am sure that in Staffordshire, as across the country, he and his supporters are finding that Conservative councils use their resources efficiently.
Too often, when one analyses their spending, Labour or Labour-Liberal Democrat or Liberal Democrat councils use their money inefficiently. Sometimes, they have strange sets of priorities. As Education Minister, I shall, of course, continue to reiterate the importance of education. In saying that, I am backed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has stated many times the importance that he attaches to education. We expect to see that priority represented and reflected across the country in the decisions of local authorities.
This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising so many important issues. I very much hope and trust that, with the information that I have given him tonight, he will be able to return to his constituents and explain even more clearly than the brilliant way in which he has already, the reasons why Staffordshire may be under-performing in education terms. He can explain to them that it is up to the LEA and the governing bodies to address those problems rather than to assume that it is simply a matter for greater funding from the centre at the expense of the taxpayer, year in and year out.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Turkey to discuss the situation of Kurdish people. [19645]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans at present to visit Turkey.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will identify the evidence in Social Trends for his figures on the ratio of local education authority administrators to teachers in schools. [21570]

  The Prime Minister
  The source is more appropriate and relevant for this issue than Social Trends. The figures are published by the Local Government Management Board, revealing that there are more than two non-teaching staff for every three teachers.

  The figures show that in June 1994 local education authorities in England employed 376,665 full-time equivalent teachers and lecturers and 316,244 full-time equivalent other manual and non-manual staff involved in education.

  This makes a ratio of 2.5 non-teaching staff to three teachers.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Lord President of the Council, 3 April 1995,Official Report, column 1388, whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to eschew further inquiry into the Lockerbie crime. [21402]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The criminal investigation into the Lockerbie bombing remains open.

  Regency Act 1937
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the parliamentary timetable for consideration of the proposal of the Law Commission to amend section 2(2) of the Regency Act 1937; what consultations have been held with the governments of other countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state; and if he will make a statement. [20837]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The Statute Law (Repeals) Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 20 April and has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in accordance with the usual procedure for consolidation Bills.
  614
  No consultations have been held with the Governments of other countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implications of amending the Regency Act 1937 in relation to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster Act 1931. [20854]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The proposed repeal of the words "and to the Government of India" in section 2(2) of the Regency Act 1937 has no implications in relation to the Statue of Westminster 1931. The reference to the Government of India in section 2(2) of the 1937 Act is there because India did not fall within the term "dominions" as defined by section 1 of the Statute of Westminster 1931.

TRANSPORT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21155]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None.

  (b) The Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).

  (c) DPTAC.

  DPTAC has a statutory base.

  Marine Safety Report
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making available the final report of the National Marine Safety Steering Committee. [21575]

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of the report are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available from the Marine Safety Agency, Marine Information Centre, Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton, SO15 1EG, Tel: 01703 329297.

  Ferry Inspections
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the inspection reports of the roll-on roll-off ferries inspected at the port of Folkestone over the last six months; [19386]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the inspection reports of roll-on roll-off ferries inspected at the port of Dover over the last six months. [19385]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that there is no benefit to the travelling public to be gained from the release of the results of routine inspections. The technical content of the report would not be easily comprehensible and could be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, to release information only on inspections carried out in an individual port could unfairly disadvantage operators to that port.
  615
  In cases where an inspection of a foreign registered roll-on roll-off ferry reveals serious deficiencies which lead to its detention, the details would be included in the list of ships detained in UK ports, which is published monthly by the Marine Safety Agency.

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21164]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Minister of State for Employment to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on 27 June 1994,Official Report, column 452.

ENVIRONMENT

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the recommendations from each Government office on bids to the single regeneration budget challenge fund in 1995–96; [20395]

  (2) which bids for single regeneration budget monies in 1994–95 were recommended for acceptance by the relevant Government office but were rejected by the government. [20401]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In line with established practice in relation to documents which are the subject of Cabinet Committee proceedings, there are no plans to publish the internal advice to Ministers from the directors of the Government offices for the regions on bids for support from the single regeneration budget challenge fund in 1995–96.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the latest criteria for judging bids to the single regeneration budget challenge fund have been influenced by the experiences of the 1995–96 bidding round. [20396]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following the success of the first round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund there have only been a few detailed, positive changes to the bidding guidance. Copies have been placed in Library of the House.

  Residential Institutions (Change of Use)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to change the C2 class of the 1987 Use Classes Order to allow local authorities control of change of use of residential institutions; and if he will make a statement. [20468]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 1 January 1995, we have received two representations to change class C2—residential institutions—of the Town and Country 616
  Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Present arrangements reflect the assessment that a change from one kind of residential institution to another does not fundamentally affect the nature of the use of the site.

  Leigh Mill, Wigan
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to announce the results of the public inquiry held in November in respect of Leigh Mill, Wigan; and if he will make a statement. [20726]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued on 8 February his decision to refuse listed building consent for the removal of a mill engine from Leigh Mill.

  Butterflies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he taking about the decline in numbers of the(a) swallowtail, (b) large blue, (c) pearl-boarded fritillary, (d) high brown fritillary and (e) marsh fritillary butterflies; and if he will make a statement. [20896]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 27 October 1994,Official Report, column 816, in which I advised on the development of targets for species conservation, announced in "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan."

  English Nature is already part-funding a three-year project by Butterfly Conservation, preparing conservation plans for the scarcer butterfly species, including the five about which the hon. Member is concerned.

  The Biodiversity Steering Group is also considering a number of scarce butterfly and other species as candidates for action plans to improve their conservation status. The group will report later this year.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21163]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department sponsors the following advisory non-departmental public bodies which have a statutory base:

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council,

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances,

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment,

  Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee,

  Local Government Commission for England, and

  Local Government Staff Commission

  The following advisory bodies have a statutory requirement to publish their advice to Government on certain matters: the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and the Local Government Commission for England. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has a statutory requirement to maintain a public register containing specific information.

  None of the advisory bodies has a statutory requirement to publish an annual report or lay it before Parliament.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a new framework document for the Ordnance Survey Executive Agency. [21783]

  Mr. Atkins
  The framework document for Ordnance Survey has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, columns 283–84, when the parliamentary channel stopped being available to electors with a moveable satellite dish; when United Artists digitalised the parliamentary channel signal in order to share the transponder with wire TV; and if he will request that the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. consider selling decoders to electors to enable then to have access to the televised proceedings of Parliament. [19115]

  Mr. Newton
  Until June 1994, the parliamentary channel was distributed to cable-head ends via the Intelsat transponder, from which it was possible for viewers with large rotatable satellite dishes to pick up the signal directly rather than via a local cable service. From that date, the parliamentary channel switched its delivery mechanism to a different transponder and at the same time digitalised and compressed the signal. Although it was not the intention behind the change in the delivery system, one consequence was that those viewers with moveable satellite dishes who had previously been able to receive the signal were no longer able to do so.

  At a meeting on 27 June 1994, the Select Committed on Broadcasting considered a number of complaints from viewers who were no longer able to receive the channel. While regretting the understandable disappointment of those affected, the Committee noted that the parliamentary channel was established as a cable service. Even though, quite fortuitously some people had been able, prior to the change to digitalisation, to eavesdrop on the signal via the distribution satellite, this did not seem to the Committee grounds for questioning United Artists' fulfilment of its original undertaking regarding the availability of the signal.

  As a result of the savings achieved by digitalisation, the parliamentary channel is extending its service to include coverage of Committees at weekends from 7 May 1995.

  Decoders which enable the digitalised signal to be unscrambled are available only to cable-head ends for cable distribution. They are manufactured specifically for that market and are not otherwise sold.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what directions he has issued under section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993; if he 618
  will make a statement on their content; and if he will place copies in the Library. [20983]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My predecessor issued directions under section 26(1) and (2) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 on 20 June last year. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the answer given by the Director-General of Oflot on 28 March in his letter to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, what proportion of the £3 million cost of Oflot is recovered from(a) the national lottery distribution fund and (b) licencing fees. [20992]

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the 1994–95 financial year, £2,910,000 or 97 per cent. of the expenditure of the Office of the National Lottery will have been recovered from the national lottery distribution fund and £90,000 or 3 per cent. will have been from the payment of licence fees.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what grounds the draft guidelines issued by the National Lottery Charities Board allowed for the exclusion of charities concerned with environmental matters. [20984]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The issue of these guidelines is a matter for the board. I understand, however, that their purpose is to indicate only those areas to which the board intends to give priority. It must consider all applications from all eligible bodies, including charities concerned with environmental matters, on their merits and can not wholly exclude any. Decisions in individual cases are a matter for the board.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the National Heritage what is the legal basis for the issuing of draft guidelines for the disbursement of funds by the National Lottery Charities Board. [20982]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides that the National Lottery Charities Board, inter alia, shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State as to the matters to be taken into account in determining the persons to whom, the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which it distributes any money. The board is currently being consulted on the proposed directions as required by section 26(5) of that Act. The issue by the board of guidelines to applicants on how, in the light of the directions, it intends to set about the disbursement of the funds available to it, is a matter for the board.

  Rugby Football
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Sports Council concerning discrimination by the rugby league authorities against the Australian rugby league in international matches; and if he will make a statement in relation to the principle of discrimination within rugby league and between rugby union and rugby league. [21327]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have had no such consultation. I have, of course, read the National Heritage Select Committee's report on relations between rugby union and rugby league and will be responding to the issues raised, including discrimination, in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. [20661]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: My Department's executive non-departmental public bodies are listed in "Public Bodies 1994". The functions and responsibilities of each body are specified in its founding legislation or charter. The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are listed in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as amended. This includes:

  Arts Council of Great Britain

  British Film Institute

  British Library Board

  Crafts Council

  English Tourist Board

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (English Heritage) Museums and Galleries Commission

  Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Register of Public Lending Right

  Sports Council

  (b) None.

  (c) All of my Department's executive NDPBs are subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the exception of the national film development fund.

  (d) There are no statutory provisions on open government which apply to executive NDPBs, although all NDPBs subject to the jurisdiction of the PCA will be covered by the non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information.

  (e) Performance indicators for my Department's executive NDPBs can be found in their annual reports.

  (f) The principles of the citizens charter apply to all the Department's executive NDPBs.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds were provided to Derbyshire family health services authority for reallocation to the other family health service authorities in Trent for dental peer group review in each year since 1991; [20674]

  (2) what amounts were reallocated by each family health service authority within Trent regional health authority by Derbyshire family health services authority of the funds provided for dental peer group review in each year since 1991. [20675]

  Mr. Malone
  Since the start of the peer review scheme in August 1991, the Department has reimbursed Derbyshire family health services authority the amounts as shown, for payment to dentists who participated in peer review. Derbyshire family health services authority has 620
  been nominated to make all peer review payments to dentists in the Trent region and no reallocation of funds by it to other family health services authorities is required.

  1997–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Total £

  3,965

  44,736

  127,176

  223,096

  398,973

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she intends to take to improve value for money in the community dental service; [20704]

  (2) what out of hours emergency service she intends to require the community dental service to provide to cover shortfalls in the general dental service. [20679]

  Mr. Malone
  The community dental service is the responsibility of health authorities and national health service trusts. It is for these authorities to ensure that the service is run efficiently and meets the needs of people in the locality, who cannot get treatment in the general dental service. The Government have recently announced their intention to strengthen the "safety net" role of the CDS. Health authorities and trusts will be considering all aspects of this, including the provision of emergency service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recommendations in the Bloomfield dental report(a) have been implemented and (b) are planned for implementation. [20691]

  Mr. Malone
  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was not asked to make recommendations but rather to identify the options for change. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 5 April at cols.1213–15, on the package of reforms which was consistent with Sir Kenneth's report.

  Manchester Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to remove the chairman and non-executive directors of Manchester family health services authority following their unlawful use of funds when promoting fundholding general practitioners. [20682]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The chairman and chief executive of Manchester family health services authority who were in post during the events which led to the judicial review left the authority in 1992.

  Information for Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require all NHS trusts to display prominently at the accident and emergency reception and at the main reception the name and telephone number of the duty manager. [20700]

  Mr. Malone
  The patients charter sets out the right for patients to be given information on local health services. It is for trusts to decide locally how to make this information available.

  Foundation Trust, Stafford
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to set up a Department of Health inquiry
  621
  into the dismissal of Mr. Michael Murray from his post as chief executive of the Foundation Trust, Stafford; and when the findings will be made public. [20673]

  Mr. Malone
  I have no plans to do so.

  Neuroleptic Drugs (Deaths)
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision has been taken, following discussions with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to begin research into the deaths of psychiatric patients associated with neuroleptic drugs. [20730]

  Mr. Bowis
  It has been agreed in principle that the remit of the confidential inquiry into homicide and suicides by mentally ill people should be extended to cover the deaths of patients associated with neuroleptic drugs. Further discussions will be held about the arrangements for examining these deaths.

  Mental Health Spending
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the budget of each local authority's social services department is currently spent on mental health services. [20826]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not yet available for the current year. The information for 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  Personal social services: percentage of total budgeted expenditure on mental health services 1994–95

  Per cent.

  City of London

  19.5

  Camden

  8.3

  Greenwich

  5.1

  Hackney

  6.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11.5

  Islington

  3.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8.2

  Lambeth

  5.7

  Lewisham

  6.5

  Southwark

  4.8

  Tower Hamlets

  12.0

  Wandsworth

  6.8

  Westminster

  8.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.3

  Barnet

  6.3

  Bexley

  3.2

  Brent

  6.1

  Bromley

  4.3

  Croydon

  6.4

  Ealing

  6.3

  Enfield

  6.8

  Haringey

  7.1

  Harrow

  7.5

  Havering

  3.0

  Hillingdon

  5.1

  Hounslow

  6.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  5.1

  Merton

  5.5

  Newham

  6.6

  Redbridge

  3.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  7.0

  Sutton

  2.4

  Waltham Forest

  7.7

  622

  Personal social services: percentage of total budgeted expenditure on mental health services 1994–95

  Per cent.

  Bolton

  5.7

  Bury

  5.2

  Manchester

  8.7

  Oldham

  6.0

  Rochdale

  5.9

  Salford

  2.4

  Stockport

  3.3

  Tameside

  2.7

  Trafford

  5.4

  Wigan

  1.6

  Knowsley

  7.5

  Liverpool

  7.8

  St. Helens

  4.9

  Sefton

  4.8

  Wirral

  4.5

  Barnsley

  4.0

  Doncaster

  3.4

  Rotherham

  4.0

  Sheffield

  4.5

  Gateshead

  11.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6.2

  North Tyneside

  4.6

  South Tyneside

  4.5

  Sunderland

  4.5

  Birmingham

  4.9

  Coventry

  2.5

  Dudley

  5.1

  Sandwell

  8.9

  Solihull

  4.7

  Walsall

  3.1

  Wolverhampton

  5.3

  Bradford

  3.9

  Calderdale

  2.6

  Kirklees

  5.9

  Leeds

  2.4

  Wakefield

  2.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.5

  Avon

  4.4

  Bedfordshire

  3.1

  Berkshire

  5.8

  Buckinghamshire

  5.8

  Cambridgeshire

  2.0

  Cheshire

  5.0

  Cleveland

  3.5

  Cornwall

  3.5

  Cumbria

  1.1

  Derbyshire

  4.0

  Devon

  4.9

  Dorset

  3.3

  Durham

  3.4

  East Sussex

  4.8

  Essex

  1.1

  Gloucestershire

  2.6

  Hampshire

  5.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  6.2

  Hertfordshire

  3.5

  Humberside

  4.1

  Isle of Wight

  6.4

  Kent

  3.5

  Lancashire

  4.3

  Leicestershire

  6.5

  Lincolnshire

  3.7

  Norfolk

  4.2

  Northamptonshire

  6.9

  Northumberland

  2.6

  North Yorkshire

  4.5

  Nottinghamshire

  3.9

  Oxfordshire

  4.9

  Shropshire

  5.9

  Somerset

  6.7

  Staffordshire

  0.9

  Suffolk

  5.2

  623

  Personal social services: percentage of total budgeted expenditure on mental health services 1994–95

  Per cent.

  Surrey

  8.0

  Warwickshire

  6.1

  West Sussex

  5.0

  Wiltshire

  4.4

  Based on budget returns provided by local authorities on form RA95.

  Out-patient Travelling Expenses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will issue guidance reminding NHS trusts of the rights of out-patients to travelling expenses and requiring them to draw patients' attention to such rights in their in their out-patient appointment documentation; [20693]

  (2) if she will take immediate steps to ensure out-patients are not deprived of their rights to travelling expenses. [20697]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has already issued guidance to the national health service setting out the arrangements for payment of travel costs to all those hospital patients entitled to it. This guidance advises hospitals to send details of these arrangements with appointment or admissions letters.

  Voluntary Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department offers to health authorities and trusts concerning the appointment of voluntary staff to clerical and administrative posts. [21053]

  Mr. Malone
  HSG(92)15 issued to national health service trusts, health authorities and community health councils on 17 March 1992 provided guidance on voluntary work in hospitals. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Bradford Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the standard of treatment of and research into scar tissue as a result of burns; and what evaluation she has made of the effect on the treatment and research relating to scar tissue which will result as a consequence of the closure of the Bradford unit. [19945]

  Mr. Bowis
  Treatment of and research into scar tissue as a result of burns is carried out in several plastic surgery units in this country. The standard of both treatment and research is excellent. I understand that the Bradford plastic surgery and burns unit, a charity, makes a helpful contribution in this field. I hope that the Bradford unit will succeed in its bid for further charitable funding so that it can continue to complement the work done by the other units.

  District General Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the approximate population to be served by a district general hospital. [21070]

  Mr. Malone
  There is no fixed population to be served by a district general hospital as such hospitals do not just serve the needs of the local population. It is the 624
  responsibility of district health authorities, as the main purchasers of health care for their populations, to ensure that local health care needs are met through the placing of contracts with hospitals both inside their boundaries and, where appropriate, outside.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she gives on the percentage of a district general hospital area that should be within a 30-minute blue light travel time from a district general hospital. [21071]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no central guidance on this matter. It is for the district health authority to take relevant issues into account when placing contracts for services.

  GP Fundholders (Hospital Referrals)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on trends in hospital referrals by general practitioner fundholders. [21072]

  Mr. Malone
  A report by Professor Angela Coulter in the British Medical Journal of February 1993, based on the first two years of fundholding, showed no evidence of any changes in general practitioner fundholder referral patterns. Other studies have shown that fundholders have improved services for patients, including the reduction of waiting times.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings she has had in the last six months about the future of the Royal Marsden hospital; [21086]

  (2) what plans she has to close the Royal Marsden hospital. [21087]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Polio
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the position in respect of eradication of the wild polio virus from the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [21320]

  Mr. Sackville
  The World Health Organisation considers the United Kingdom as being one of those countries which have eliminated polio due to wild virus. This is due to the great success of our childhood immunisation programme which has resulted in the incidence of childhood diseases being at their lowest ever levels. Today, 95 per cent. of all children have been unimmunised against polio by two years of age. However, despite this achievement, nobody should remain immunised against polio, whatever age they are. Unimmunised people can be at some risk of catching polio from recently immunised babies if standard hygiene procedures are not carefully followed; travellers to areas of the world where polio is still endemic should ensure that they are appropriately protected.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical research her Department is aware of suggesting that a return to the inactivated polio vaccine would reduce the remote risk of vaccine damage to children; and whether this position is being reviewed. [21326]
  625
  Mr. Bowis
  Oral polio vaccine and inactivated polio vaccine are both efficacious vaccines. However, whereas both vaccines provide protection against poliomyelitis for the individual immunised, only OPV produces "herd immunity' whereby susceptible contacts are protected as well. OPV is the vaccine used in the United Kingdom.

  On average there are between one and two vaccine-associated cases of poliomyelitis reported in England and Wales each year. During 1994–95 over 7 million doses of OPV were issued to the national health service. The National Institute of Biological Standards and Controls undertakes research on the neurovirulence of oral polio vaccine. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation keeps matters such as vaccine-associated poliomyelitis under careful review and believes that OPV is the most appropriate product for United Kingdom circumstances. OPV is the vaccine recommended by World Health Organisation for global polio eradication.

  Measles and Rubella Vaccination
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the results of the study into the 17 cases of severe adverse reaction from the 1994 mass measles and rubella vaccination. [21325]

  Mr. Bowis
  The 17 cases referred to were spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to measles and rubella vaccine which predominantly affected the nervous system. Doctors who reported these cases have been contacted to obtain further details of the reaction and the progress of these patients. Thirteen are known to have recovered from their reaction, two have not yet recovered and further information is not yet available in two cases. These figures are out of nearly 6.5 million children who were immunised during the campaign.

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been made and what records are available from the Committee on Safety of Medicines concerning adverse reactions to whooping cough vaccine. [21322]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines keeps records of suspected reactions to whooping cough vaccine. Receipt of a report does not indicate that the vaccine caused the reaction, merely that the reporter suspected that this may have been the case. Whooping cough vaccine is usually given in a combined preparation with diphtheria and tetanus vaccine and at the same time as vaccines for haemophilus influenzae type B and poliomyelitis. This makes it difficult to identify the cause of an adverse reaction.

  General Medical Services Budgets
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the general medical services cash-limited budget in each family health services authority area in each year since 1990–91; and what is the planned budget for the next three years.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: The information requested is not available centrally. Allocations to family health services authorities are made
  626
  by regional health authorities. The allocations to RHAs for cash-limited general medical services are shown in the tables. Allocations are made for one financial year ahead only.

  GMS cash limited allocations

  £ million

  RHA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  26.8

  32.1

  36.4

  36.7

  East Anglian

  24.4

  31.8

  34.4

  35.1

  Mersey

  21.6

  26.9

  30.2

  30.0

  West Midlands

  41.5

  52.2

  59.1

  60.1

  South Western

  39.2

  48.0

  52.9

  53.2

  Oxford

  25.3

  33.2

  36.6

  36.7

  Wessex

  29.3

  37.7

  41.6

  41.8

  SW Thames

  28.6

  35.7

  39.9

  40.7

  SE Thames

  37.4

  46.1

  51.1

  52.3

  NE Thames

  34.7

  43.5

  48.7

  50.1

  NW Thames

  33.9

  43.3

  48.7

  49.3

  Trent

  41.8

  53.5

  59.2

  59.4

  Yorkshire

  39.2

  42.6

  47.2

  47.2

  North Western

  33.7

  38.0

  42.7

  43.7

  Total allocation

  457.40

  564.60

  628.70

  636.30

  GMS cash limited allocations

  £ million

  RHA

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  88.8

  94.5

  Trent

  63.1

  67.1

  Anglia and Oxford

  81.9

  85.0

  North Thames

  98.0

  101.7

  South Thames

  99.0

  102.8

  South and West

  98.9

  102.6

  West Midlands

  64.5

  70.2

  North West

  80.1

  86.4

  Total Allocation

  674.30

  710.30

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  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
  [pursuant to his answer, 25 April 1995, c. 412]: I regret that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council was omitted from the list of executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Public Service and Science.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number and location of Government Property Lawyers 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 628
  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. [19970]

  The Attorney-General
  I have responsibility for the Government Property Lawyers, which is an agency of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, whose remit extends only to England and Wales. It follows that no work of that agency has been or would be transferred either to or from Scotland.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has in respect of personal injury claims through the small claims court; and if he will make a statement. [21149]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Procedures affecting small personal injury claims, among others, are within the scope of Lord Woolf' s comprehensive review of civil justice. The Lord Chancellor is awaiting the first report of this review, and any decisions will be taken in that context.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many(a) Lords of Appeal, (b) Lord Justices of Appeal, (c) High Court judges, (d) chairmen of tribunals for which his Department is responsible and (e) members of non-judicial bodies for which his Department is responsible, are former members of the Freemasons, according to his departmental files; [21256]

  (2) how many (a) Lords of Appeal, (b) Lord Justices of Appeal, (c) High Court judges, (d) chairmen of tribunals for which his Department is responsible and (e) members of non-judicial bodies for which his Department is responsible, are currently members of the Freemasons, according to his departmental files. [21255]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Such information is not collected either on candidates for appointment or on serving judges or office-holders, so the information requested is not available from my Department's files.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the total costs to the legal aid fund in the case of Alistair Green v. Ministry of Defence; and what costs were incurred by the legal aid fund after the Ministry had paid £32,000 into court. [19903]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No final bill has been received in this matter and, therefore, the total cost to the legal aid fund is not yet known. However, £80,000 has been paid to date on account to lawyers representing Mr. Green. It is not possible to identify separately costs incurred after the Ministry of Defence had paid moneys into court.

  Public Trustee
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the actions of the public trustee in relation to legal proceedings brought by Miss Phoebe Winch. [19998]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am unable to comment on individual cases where legal proceedings have been brought against the public trustee, who is also chief executive of the Public Trust Office. Whilst she is accountable for her actions as public trustee, she is also an 630
  independent statutory office holder and the decisions she takes in exercise of her statutory functions are those of her office and are not taken on behalf of the Government.

  As the question concerns a specific case, I have asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Julia Lomas to Mr. Alex Carlisle, dated 25 April 1995:
  The Lord Chancellor has asked me to reply to your Question about the actions of my Office in relation to legal proceedings brought by Miss Phoebe Winch.
  I think you may be mistaken in your reference to Miss Phoebe Winch and mean Miss Mary Agnes Winch who has brought proceedings against the Public Trustee and I am replying to your Question on the basis that it meant to refer to Miss Mary Agnes Winch and not Miss Phoebe Winch.
  In 1982 Miss Mary Agnes Winch brought proceedings against the Public Trustee in relation to the administration of the estate of her mother the late Mrs Violet Winch. These proceedings were defended.
  The case was very complicated and the hearing was anticipated to be lengthy and expensive. I therefore authorised in 1994 the payment of £15000 into Court to settle the matter. Miss Winch accepted this settlement which was made with no admission of liability on the part of the Public Trustee.
  The Public Trustee have always been confident that had the case been fought the Public Trustee would have won, albeit at a disproportionate cost to public funds. The payment into Court was, and remains, regarded by me as a payment to save public funds, rather than any admission as to the merits of Miss Winch's claim.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number and location of HM Land Registry, Public Record and Public Trust 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. [19969]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Neither Her Majesty's Land Registry nor the Public Record and Public Trust Offices have ever had offices or jobs in Scotland and neither have these agencies transferred any offices or jobs to Scotland to date. Accordingly, the situations referred to in the question have not arisen.

  Agency Performance Targets
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office executive agencies for 1995–96. [21854]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following tables set out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Records Office and the Public Trust Office for 1995–96.
  631

  Her Majesty's Land Registry Executive Agency Key Performance Targets 1995–96

  Indicator

  Target

  1.Financial

  return on average capital employed1:

  6 per cent.

  External Financing Limit:

  £0

  2. Efficiency

  Cost per unit in real terms2:

  £28.70 (2.9 per cent. reduction over the 1994–95 target of £29.56)

  Cost per unit in cash terms:

  £31.15

  3. Productivity

  Unit output per post (per day):

  3.202 units (9.1 per cent. increase over the 1994–95 target of 2.935 units)

  4. Speed of Service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled within 2 working days at every district land registry:

  Not less than 96 per cent.

  Average processing time for post-completion applications at every district land registry:

  Where no requisitions arise, no more than 19 working days

  5. Quality of Service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled free of error at every district land registry:

  No less than 99.75 per cent.

  Percentage of post-completion applications handled free of error at every district land registry:

  No less than 98.30 per cent.

  6. Development of Land Registration

  Number of computerised registers:

  To increase the number of registered titles in computerised format to 12.50 million.

  1 A revised target for return on average capital employed will be agreed for 1995–96 following the conclusion of discussions with HM Treasury. The purpose of the discussions is to enable an element of surpluses arising up to 31 March 1995 to be carried over to 1995–96 and future years. This will allow the registry to reduce or contain future fee levels.

  2 The real term unit cost in the base year of 1992–93 was £31.30.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the registry's performance targets are given in its business plan, which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  Public Record Office Key Performance Targets 1995–96

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Efficiency

  Unit cost of selecting and accessioning records (per unit):

  Targets: (a) standard accessions £25.69 and (b) Open Government accessions £94.71

  Unit cost of providing storage space per linear metre:

  Target: £5.19

  Unit cost of documents produced to readers, per document:

  Target: £16.84

  Unit cost of census reader service, per reader visit:

  Target: £4.93

  632

  Public Record Office Key Performance Targets 1995–96

  Indicator

  Target

  Unit cost of other reader services, per reader visit:

  Target: £31.65

  Backlog of records reported by departments as being over 30 years old and awaiting review:

  To reduce the current known backlog of such records (2,700 linear metres) by 675 metres

  Provision of acceptable storage conditions:

  81 per cent. of records to be stored to the preservation and environmental standard recommended by BS5454: 1989 Recommendations for storage and exhibition of archival documents (BSI 1989)

  The timely destruction of records not worthy of preservation:

  Departments to have in place specified key features of records management as described in the PRO Manual of Records Administration

  Management efficiency in running support services and projects:

  To reduce the running costs of corporate services in relation to the total running costs of the Office from 9.83 per cent. to 9.74 per cent.

  2. Quality of service

  Readers' views on services provided, as discovered through biannual satisfaction surveys:

  82 per cent. of reader satisfaction survey forms returned to have an overall assessment of "good" or better

  Response times for answering correspondence:

  To send replies to letters requiring a stock letter within one week

  To send replies to other letters (including those requiring estimates for copies) within three weeks

  Documents production times:

  To make documents available to readers within the following maximum times: Kew: 35 minutes Chancery Lane: 40 minutes

  The speed of the reprographic service and quality of copies (subject to the preservation needs of the documents):

  (a) Electrostatic copies (except A2 size), up to 15 copies: same day counter service for readers

  (b) Electrostatic copies (A2 size), up to 10 copies: same day counter service for readers

  (c) Electrostatic copies, up to 75 copies: 5 working days

  (d) Electrostatic copies, over 75 copies: 20 working days

  (e) Prints from existing microfilm, up to 75 copies: 5 working days

  (f) Prints from existing microfilm, over 75 copies: 20 working days

  (g) Prints from new microfilm: 3 weeks

  (h) Microfilm from existing negatives, up to 1000m: 4 weeks

  (i) Microfilm where there is no existing negative, up to 350m: 22 weeks

  (j) Bromide prints: 3 weeks

  633

  Public Record Office Key Performance Targets 1995–96

  Indicator

  Target

  (k) Self service copying from microfilm: a service will be available in the microfilm reading rooms during opening times

  Quality of copying:

  No more than 4 per cent. to be required to be re-taken

  The quality and usefulness of finding aids to the records:

  To continue work on bringing the current guide up to date:

  —to produce a new edition in hard copy;

  —to write or expand 10 new sections or sub-sections

  Notes:

  1. Some of these targets will be subject to suspension or modification on occasion due to the major disruption to the Office's services and activities which will be caused in 1995–96 by the closure of the Chancery Lane building, the removal of records to Kew and the refurbishment of the existing Kew building. Where appropriate, supplemental targets have been set in order to mitigate the effect on users.

  2. Fuller details of the office's performance targets and of anticipated disruptions to services and activities are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Record Office.

  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key Performance Targets 1995–96

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times.

  To bring to account at least 97 per cent. of receipts and payments transactions within turnaround targets by volume weighted performance against those targets.

  2. To achieve investment targets.

  To pay annually not less than the rate provided by the average of a model set of comparators for special rate and basic rate at 75 per cent. of special rate; on an annual basis to ensure that 85 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices.

  3. To achieve Charter standards.

  To achieve 98 per cent. of Charter Standards.

  4. To achieve unit costs in activity areas.

  To reduce unit costs so that the weighted mean percentage reduction of the PTO's activities, taken with achievement in 1994–95, will be at least 4 per cent. against the baseline year of 1993–94.

  5. Percentage of full costs recovered.

  To ensure that 100 per cent. of full costs are recovered.

  Note:

  Fuller details of the office's performance targets are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Trust Office.

  Marriage Guidance and Research Organisations
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have for the future responsibility for the funding of marriage guidance and research organisations from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. [21853]
  634
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, responsibility for the funding of marriage guidance and research organisations has been transferred from the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Lord Chancellor.

  Divorce
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government has to bring forward reforms to the law of divorce in England and Wales following the publication of the consultation paper in December 1993; and if he will make a statement. [21855]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament a White Paper, "Looking to the future. Mediation and the ground for divorce'. This paper sets out the Government's proposals in relation to the introduction of family mediation, reform of the ground for divorce and related matters.

  Appointments (Consultation)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he or his private office is consulted by the Lord Chancellor or his private office, either formally or informally, about(a) candidates for appointment as magistrates, tribunal members and senior full-time judges, (b) candidates for non-judicial public appointments and (c) candidates for appointments of chief executives of executive agencies and non-departmental bodies for which his Department is responsible. [21412]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not the practice to disclose internal consultation between Ministers.

WALES

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each financial year since 1991–92 the hospital and community health services gross current expenditure by sector and by age; and if he will separately distinguish the expenditure on the hospital and community health service for each age group, expressed as a cost per head of population. [19897]

  Mr. Richards
  The gross current expenditure on hospital and community health services for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 is as follows. Information on expenditure by sector and age is not held centrally.

  £

  1991–92

  1,200,616,000

  1992–93

  1,296,607,000

  1993–94

  11,296,629,000

  Source:

  Health authority and NHS trust annual accounts.

  Note:

  1 Provisional.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales: (1) how much staff time, and at what estimated
  635
  cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20169]

  (2) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [29170]

  Mr. Redwood
  Costs are not separately attributable to the departmental report of much of the information there presented, which is collected for other purposes. At a rough estimate, staff costs of the editing, design and translation of the 1995 Report, Cm 2815, were £37,000, and for previous years would be broadly comparable in real terms.

  The Department operates a system of divisional and group plans which ensures that both programme and running cost provision are identified for key objectives and targets.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales 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. [20001]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total number of farmers in Wales in 1994–95 who received environmentally sensitive area payments in each band is as follows:

  Number

  (a)

  0

  (b)

  2

  (c)

  29

  (d)

  30

  (e)

  190

  In addition, 501 scheme participants received payments of less than £1,000.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 the environmentally sensitive areas budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95. [20000]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Expenditure in 1994–95 was £1,533,000 or 22 per cent. of the total budget of £6,863,000.

  Five new areas were launched in Wales during 1994, bringing the total number of designations in Wales to eight. I expect expenditure in Wales to increase as more farmers enter the new schemes.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the standard and enforcement of fire safety regulations in houses in multiple occupation in Wales. [20783]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have consulted widely on both fire safety and houses in multiple occupation; decisions will be announced in due course.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average rent charged by each Welsh housing association for(a) one-bedroom, (b) two-bedroom and (c) three-bedroom properties in each year since Tai Cymru was established. [21084]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available in the form requested. Information for 1994–95 is, however, held by Housing for Wales and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  A44
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to carry out road improvements during the next three years on the A44 trunk road between Ponterwyd, Cardiganshire and Llangurig Montgomeryshire. [21104]

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no plans for any major improvements to this section of road. However, a small scheme to provide a footway near Ponterwyd is under consideration and some localised side support works are planned at Gelli Bends and Bont Rhydgaled.

  Health Service Survey
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the survey on the future needs and aims of the Welsh health service. [21319]

  Mr. Redwood
  The survey will help my Department and the NHS in Wales identify priority areas for improving both the health of the population and the responsiveness of the service to the needs and expectations of patients.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the company administering the Welsh health service random sample questionnaire survey and the principle components of the work specified in that company contracts; and if the company was chosen after competitive tender. [21318]

  Mr. Redwood
  The contract for the Welsh health survey was awarded to the South East Institute of Public Health. The main components of the contract are: testing the questionnaire and the survey method; drawing the sample; printing and posting the letters, questionnaires, and reminders; entering the answers from the completed questionnaires into a computer database; analysis of the data and production of a report.

  The contract was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities and awarded by competitive tender.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 24 April,Official Report, columns 371–72, if he will make a statement on the guidelines he issued on financial viability of trusts as a consideration in contract setting by NHS providers and on what date he issued them (a) in draft and (b) in final form; and what representations he has received concerning their content from (i) purchasers and (ii) providers. [21414]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 April,Official Report, column 515.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the new membership of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and if he will make a statement. [21981]

  Mr. Redwood
  The following have accepted invitations to be members of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Sir Idris Pearce, Chairman

  Dr. Eleri Edwards

  Professor Richard Griffiths

  Sir Philip Jones CB

  Mr. Alfred Morris

  Dr. Brynley Roberts

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  Professor Roger Williams

  Dr. Edwards and Professor Williams have been appointed for three years from 6 May 1995, and the other members reappointed for two years from the same date.

  Dr. R. H. Jones continues as a member until 30 June 1995 and Professor Andrews as chief executive and member until 5 May 1997.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have(a) a statutory requirement to admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public. [20876]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: Only the Residuary Body for Wales, as a levying body, is bound by a statutory requirement, under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, to open its board meetings to the public. No NDPB has a statutory requirement to hold open meetings for the public.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial aid is now being given to Turkey from organisations in which the United Kingdom has a vote; and if he will list the organisations. [20741]

  Mr. Baldry
  A detailed breakdown of financial aid by international agencies to Turkey is not available. According to OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, in 1993, the latest year for which figures are available, total multilateral aid to that country was $3 million in loans and $25.8 million in grants. Taking into account receipts, net multilateral assistance was minus $8.7 million.

  The following agencies in which the UK has a vote currently have programmes in Turkey:

  The World Bank

  United Nations Development Programme

  Food and Agriculture Organisation

  International Atomic Energy Agency

  United Nations Population Fund

  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

  World Food Programme

  638

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

  World Health Organisation

  United Nations Childrens Fund

  United Nations Department of Development

  Support and Management Services

  World Intellectual Property Organisation

  World Meteorological Organisation

  International Civil Aviation Organisation

  International Maritime Organisation

  International Labour Organisation

  European Community assistance provided to Turkey in the form of grants and loans under the first three EC/Turkey financial protocols and the special programme of assistance agreed in 1981 has now been fully disbursed. A fourth financial protocol which should have come into force in 1981 remains suspended for political reasons. Turkey is eligible for support under a number of other EC budget lines, including horizontal cooperation in the Mediterranean and support for Turkish NGOs providing aid for Kurdish refugees.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British non-governmental organisations have, over the last five years, been working in Pakistan and elsewhere in support of refugees and displaced persons from Afghanistan; what funding each has received in each year; and what funding each is to receive over the next two years. [21150]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have provided assistance to the British non-governmental organisations as detailed in the table over the last five years for their work with Afghan refugees and displaced persons. We are unable to predict how much funding may be made available to any organisation for emergency aid over the next two years.

  £000s

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Afghanaid1

  800

  700

  1,307

  599

  787

  CAFOD

  0

  20

  29

  19

  18

  Ockenden

  Venture

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  SGAA

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Save the Children

  50

  110

  0

  0

  0

  1 Includes rehabilitation work.

  In addition the following three British non-governmental organisations received grants for immediate disaster response work. Figures are available for 1993 and 1994 only.

  £000s

  1993

  1994

  CARE

  0

  828

  Ockenden Venture

  0

  47

  Oxfam

  110

  323

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government directly and indirectly through international organisations to invest in infrastructure development in Afghanistan; what is the total amount agreed by Her Majesty's Government to be spent in such development projects over the next three
  639
  years; and what assessment has been made of the need for development investment in Afghanistan to facilitate the return of refugees to that country. [21151]

  Mr. Baldry
  Frequent discussions on the needs of Afghanistan are held with international development agencies, the Government of Pakistan and UK non-governmental organisations.

  We take the view that long-term infrastructure and development programmes are only possible when the political and security situation is stable. At present, the main focus of our assistance for Afghanistan will remain emergency aid and refugee relief and resettlement programmes. We give funding through international agencies and UK NGOs, some of which operate small rehabilitation projects in the more peaceful parts of the country.

  We understand that the United Nations development programme have plans for a meeting to discuss with the international community the prospects for a transition from humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan to longer term rehabilitation.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding financial inducements to Afghan refugees and displaced persons in Pakistan and elsewhere to assist their return to Afghanistan; and what contribution Her Majesty's Government have agreed to make to such programmes over the next two years. [21152]

  Mr. Baldry
  UNHCR provides repatriation grants to assist the return of Afghan refugees from Pakistan and Iran. We support UNHCR's work with Afghan refugees, both politically and financially. Whilst we do not earmark funds given to UNHCR specifically for repatriation grants, such use is not excluded. We are unable to make advance commitments about the use of emergency aid funds.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees on the likely implications of closing schools located in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [21167]

  Mr. Baldry
  UNHCR have no plans to cease primary education for all Afghan refugee children in Pakistan.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he will list the average length of time a claimant who was(a) retired (b) sick or disabled, (c) a single parent and (d) unemployed remained on benefit 30 years ago; and if he will give what those averages are at the latest available date. [20389]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available for 30 years ago.

  Current available information is as follows:

  (1) The average length of time for retirement pensioners to remain on benefit until death is 16.5 years.

  640

  (2) The average length of time a claimant is sick or disabled and on benefit is as follows: sickness benefit—114 days; invalidity benefit—3.4 years; severe disablement allowance—6.1 years.

  (3) At 10 May 1994 the average length of time a claimant registered as unemployed was 410 days.

  This information does not include recipients who receive only income support.

  Information for lone parents is not available.

  War Pensions
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of war pension appeals in(a) 1979 and (b) 1993 and the average length of time which elapsed between the lodging of an appeal and the appeal being heard. [20734]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  During 1979, 1,816 war pension appeals were lodged against decisions on entitlement and 1,872 appeals on the assessment of the degree of disablement. During 1993, 11,079 entitlement and 9,147 assessment appeals were lodged. The average length of time in 1993 between the lodging of an entitlement appeal and the appeal being heard was 349 days. The time scale in 1993 for an assessment appeal was 288 days. Comparable information for 1979 is not available.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on claims for war disablement pensions in respect of bilateral noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss. [20731]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the restriction on claims for war disablement pensions due to bilateral noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss arising from (a) the absence of any award where the assessment of disability is less than 20 per cent. and (b) the non-inclusion of the condition of tinnitus where assessed disablement is less than 20 per cent. [20732]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The war pensions scheme provides compensation for disablement arising from injury or disease which is due to service in the armed forces.

  Where the degree of disablement in respect of bilateral noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss is assessed at 20 per cent. or more, a war pension may be paid. Below this level, no award is made in respect of such hearing loss or any condition or symptom, such as tinnitus, which is attributable to the same basic injurious process.

  I remain satisfied that bilateral noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss of less than 20 per cent. is not the sort of disablement which should be compensated under a war pensions scheme.

  The provisions on this type of hearing loss, which came into effect on 7 January 1993, brought war pensions rules more into line with the rules covering occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme. They formed part of a package which increased considerably, from April 1993, the war pensions of the most severely disabled.

  Child Support
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make payments to those recipients of family credit and disability working allowance who lose income for the balance of the period of their existing claim to benefit as a result of the child support regulation changes to be introduced on 18 April, and if he will make a statement. [21900]
  641
  Mr. Burt
  The Department intends to make such payments as soon as it is administratively possible to do so once the loss to the individual has been identified and calculated. This compensation will equal half of the difference between the previous maintenance assessment and the new maintenance assessment for the outstanding period in that claim to family credit or disability working allowance. Although awards of these benefits are not normally changed for variations in income once made, the Government have recognised that it is unreasonable not to offer compensation to working parents with care who are modestly paid, particularly as the structure of income support offers automatic adjustment for the incomes of those parents with care not at work and dependent on income support.

  It would also be wrong to wait until the Child Support Bill received Royal Assent, before considering compensation, as this would result in a delay of several months which could cause hardship. Accordingly, payments will be made in advance of Royal Assent. Parliamentary approval for this service will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Security's central government administered Social Security benefits and other payments vote, class XIII, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,000,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Income Support (Deductions)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what agreements his Department and the Benefits Agency have with the utility industries regarding deductions from income support. [21901]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency have negotiated a joint statement of intent with the fuel and water industries, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Its purpose is to ensure the continuity of an essential supply to claimants and to prevent disconnection of that supply. It outlines procedures for direct payment for fuel and water bills from income support by reflecting regulations and providing guidance on how the direct payment system should operate in practice. The JSI is not a contract between the parties but works as a "best practice" guide.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has so far made of the number of individuals annually who change from a fixed rate to a variable rate mortgage; if such individuals would be considered under his current proposals to have obtained a new mortgage and be ineligible for the existing range of social security assistance with mortgage interest; and if he will make a statement. [21106]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No such estimate has been made. Under our proposals for changes to the rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments, a borrower with existing housing costs who changes from a fixed rate to a variable rate mortgage after 1 October this year will only be subject to the rules affecting new housing costs if they have entered into a new mortgage agreement while doing so. The full details of the new rules will not be completed until we have given full consideration to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We are currently awaiting this report which will be based on 642
  representations that were made to the committee during its consultation period.

  War Widows Pension
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with ex-service and other organisations about war widows' pensions. [213328]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Minister with special responsibility for war pensions meets regularly with members of the war pension committees and twice-yearly (in June and December) with members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. At these meetings, matters of concern to both war disablement pensioners and war widows are discussed. He also met on 25 April with Major General Sir Laurence New CB CBE, to discuss the campaign by the Officers' Pensions Society, the War Widows Association of Great Britain, the RAF Widows Association and Help the Aged, for improvements to the pension provision for war and service widows. During that meeting our decision announced on 24 April to restore the war widow's pension to those former war widows who had become widowed for a second time, divorced or legally separated was discussed.

  State Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information he has on the projected level of the state retirement pension for each of the following five years for each of the European Union member states; and what percentage change this represents relative to the projection for the previous year; [21258]

  (2) what is the current level of state retirement pension paid in each European Union member state; and what percentage increase or decrease this represents relative to the previous year. [21257]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested, as most European Union member states operate wholly earnings-related state retirement pension schemes, unlike the United Kingdom.

  Information on retirement pensions in the EU, and their annual adjustments, is contained in the "MISSOC" tables, "Social Protection in the Member States of the Community', published by the European Commission. Information about retirement pensions in the three new member states, Austria, Finland, and Sweden, may be found in "Comparative tables of social security schemes in Council of Europe member states, published by the Council of Europe. Copies of both publications are in the Library."

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21156]

  Mr. Hague
  The advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department are listed in "Public Bodies 1994".
  643
  All of the bodies have a statutory basis, but none is under statutory requirement to publish advice or reports, although most such reports are published.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what compensation is available for those who are severely or partially damaged by(a) polio vaccination and (b) measles and rubella vaccination; [21324]

  (2) whether the Government will seek to amend the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 to provide adequate compensation for the children and families affected by all degrees of vaccine damage. [21321]

  Mr. Hague
  The Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 provides for a single, tax-free payment of £30,000 for people who, on the balance of probability, have suffered severe mental and/or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more as a result of vaccination against one, or a group, of the specified diseases. The specified diseases include poliomyelitis, measles and rubella.

  The payment is not compensation, but is designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families.

  The Government are satisfied that the scheme operates fairly and effectively in its present form.

SCOTLAND

  Pensions Agency
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what key performance targets he has set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency for 1995–96. [21804]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency the following key targets for 1995–96, which cover important areas of service delivery and steps to improve efficiency and effectiveness.1. To ensure that awards and transfer payments are accurate to within 1 per cent. of their value in 99 per cent. of cases, as compared with the 1994–95 target of 1 per cent. in 98 per cent. of cases.

  2. To pay on time 99 per cent. of all pensions and lump sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met.

  3. To make transfer payments within four weeks of members' final instructions to transfer pension rights.

  4. To carry out a survey to measure customer satisfaction with administration of the teachers' superannuation scheme, taking account of experience gained from the 1994–95 NHS survey.

  5. To keep the development and supply of a new pension administration IT system on course for completion by June 1996, by reaching the last key 1995–96 milestone in the implementation plan.

  6. To optimise use of budgetary provision while keeping within direct running cost limits.

  7. To provide policy advice which is consistent with public service pension policy and takes account of operational objectives of Scottish Office departments, within the required time scales.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Mathew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [20179]

  Mr. Lang
  Much of the information collected for publication in the Scottish Office departmental report is also used for other purposes. Therefore the total staff time commitment to the report is not readily estimated. The editor of the 1995 report spent approximately four months in its compilation at an estimated cost of £15,000. Costs for previous years were broadly comparable.

  Mr. Mathew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20180]

  Mr. Lang
  Estimates are made annually, in the light of previous years' experience, of the time commitment which will be required of the departmental report editor and of the costs of pre-production design work and of purchase and distribution of copies of the report.

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current reported rate of illiteracy; and what was the rate in each of the previous four years. [20701]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the rate of illiteracy is not held centrally by the Scottish Office. In 1990 the Scottish Community Education Council was funded by the Scottish Office to undertake a small study of literacy and numeracy. This indicated that 9 per cent. of a sample of adults had difficulties with either reading, writing or numeracy.

  The Scottish Office will continue to support initiatives addressing problems of adult literacy and numeracy. We will also continue to tackle the problem in schools by encouraging appropriate support for pupils with special needs.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the actual cost incurred to date by his Department meeting the obligation to provide pension incentives to eligible applicants under the pensioner priority offer for shares on the flotation of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric; [20597]

  (2) what estimate he originally made of the likely cost to his Department of the offer announced by him on 12 March 1991 making available to pensioners of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric preferential arrangements and pension incentives on the public flotation of these companies; [20598]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department as a result of the non-completion of the pensioner incentive section of the pensioner priority offer application form submitted by eligible pensioners of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric; [20595]

  (4) how many pensioners of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric purchased shares in these companies by completing the pensioner priority offer application form;

  645
  and how many eligible applicants omitted to apply for the pensioner incentives. [20599]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: As part of the arrangements for the flotation of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric, all employees and pensioners of the two Scottish electricity boards who applied for shares were given priority access to up to £15,350 worth of shares when the allocation of shares to applicants was made. Quite separately, all applicants were able to elect to receive bonus shares if they held the shares they had purchased for a specified period and met certain other criteria; 1,170,000 applicants did so. Apart from the initial priority allocation arrangement, therefore, there were no special incentives offered to electricity board pensioners.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Protection Policies
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possible effect of taxation on those benefits paid under insurance policies purchased to provide protection to mortgage holders following his proposed changes to income support for mortgage interest; what specific proposals he has for the tax treatment of such benefits with particular reference to any period for which they would be untaxed; and if he will make a statement. [21107]

  Sir George Young
  Under the Secretary of State for Social Security's proposals, there will be no entitlement to income support in respect of mortgage interest payments for a period of nine months for new borrowers. Benefits paid under mortgage protection insurance policies that provide cover for this period are not liable to tax, provided the maximum period during which benefits can be paid does not exceed one year.

  European Community Finances
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the statement on the 1995 Community budget; and what information it will contain. [21856]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have today laid before Parliament the statement on the 1995 Community budget, entitled "European Community Finances'. This White Paper is the 15th in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters. It also describes the Budget for 1995 as adopted by the European Parliament and the United Kingdom's gross and net contribution to the Community budget over the years 1992 to 1995.

  This year, the annual statement includes for the first time details of recent developments in EC financial management and in countering fraud against the Community budget. This reflects an undertaking that I gave in December 1994 during the passage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

  Copies of the White Paper are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect on the nominal exchange rate it 646
  was Her Majesty's Government's policy to engender in the decisions to increase the interest rates on (a) 12 September 1994, (b) 7 December 1994 and (c) 2 February; and if he will publish his estimate of the effect on real interest rates together with the export unit value of United Kingdom manufacturers as a percentage of the fourth quarter 1986 figure in dollar terms. [21413]

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates are set in order to meet the Government's objective of permanently low inflation. Movements in the exchange rate are considered part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setling monetary policy. The basis of all decisions on interest rates are fully set out in the published minutes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England. Copies of the minutes are in the House of Commons Library. It is impossible to quantify effects of interest rate changes on real interest rates and export unit values.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the evidence of overheating on which be based his decision in(a) September 1994, (b) December 1994 and (c) February 1995 to raise interest rates. [21403]

  Mr. Nelson
  The basis of all the interest rate decisions on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is set out fully in the published minutes of his meetings with the Governor and in the Treasury's monthly monetary report, published on the same day as the meetings. Copies of these publications are in the House Library.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce a table showing the gross proceeds of all privatisations since 1979 and the net proceeds after taking account of(a) underwriting fees and sales commissions, (b) accounting, banking, legal and consultancy fees, (c) marketing and advertising costs, (d) the actual or estimated cost of employee and small shareholder incentives, (e) any other expenses associated with the sale, (f) any small shareholder incentives, (g) any tax or debt write-offs agreed ahead of the sale and (h) interest income or other offsetting receipts, itemising each of these costs separately, and expressing total costs as a percentage of total gross proceeds. [19894]

  Sir George Young
  It is not practical to list all companies that have been privatised as many were subsidiaries of nationalised industries and were sold by the parent body, not the Government; consequently, information is not held centrally for all such sales. The table shows the companies privatised by the Government since 1979. Non-sale costs are shown where this information is held centrally; in some cases, costs are initial estimates rather than outturns. The administrative costs incurred by the vendor department are not included. To the extent that the costs shown in the table include non-cash costs—debt written off and the cost of bonus shares—they would not normally be set against the net proceeds which are measured in cash terms. Receipts from privatisation have amounted to £60 billion over the past 15 years.
  647

  Privatisation Costs (£million)

  gross proceeds of sale

  Privatisation

  Year of sale

  equity

  debt

  total

  1Sale Costs

  Cash injection

  3Debt written off

  Employee incentives

  Loyalty incentives

  Intereston application monies

  Total costs

  As per cent. of total gross proceeds

  Net proceeds

  British

  Aerospace2

  1981

  149

  —

  149

  6

  100

  60

  —

  —

  —

  166

  111.4

  -17

  Cable and Wireless2

  1981

  224

  —

  224

  9

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  19.6

  180

  Amersham International

  1982

  63

  —

  63

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  0

  0

  63

  NFC

  1982

  54

  —

  54

  0

  49

  100

  —

  —

  —

  149

  278.5

  -96

  Britoil

  1982

  549

  —

  549

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  2.3

  536

  Associated British Ports2

  1983

  48

  25

  73

  3

  —

  81

  1

  —

  —

  85

  116.1

  -12

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  392

  —

  392

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10

  2.5

  382

  BT2

  1984

  3,916

  3,500

  7,416

  185

  —

  2,790

  56

  82

  4

  3,109

  41.9

  4,307

  British Gas2

  1986

  5,434

  2,500

  7,934

  187

  —

  —

  37

  185

  7

  402

  5.1

  7,532

  British Airways

  1987

  892

  —

  892

  35

  —

  160

  15

  8

  4

  213

  23.9

  679

  Royal Ordance

  1987

  190

  —

  190

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  2.7

  185

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  1,348

  —

  1,348

  34

  283

  —

  14

  —

  5

  326

  24.2

  1,022

  BAA

  1987

  1,225

  —

  1,225

  46

  —

  44

  3

  17

  2

  108

  8.8

  1,117

  National Seed Development Organisation

  1987

  66

  —

  66

  1

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  58.3

  28

  Professional and Executive Recruitment

  1988

  6

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  15.0

  5

  British Steel

  1988

  2,500

  —

  2,500

  58

  —

  4,489

  18

  —

  2

  4,564

  182.5

  -2,064

  General Practice Finance Corporation

  1989

  145

  —

  145

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0.4

  145

  Harland and Wolff

  1989

  8

  —

  8

  1

  205

  422

  —

  —

  —

  629

  8,275

  -621

  Short Brothers

  1989

  30

  —

  30

  2

  366

  390

  —

  —

  759

  2,529

  2,529

  -729

  Regional Electicity Companies

  1990

  5,182

  2,815

  7,997

  5202

  —

  —

  51

  64

  34

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Generating Companies2

  1991

  2,228

  768

  2,996

  585

  —

  —

  24

  41

  6

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  1991

  2,918

  626

  3,544

  114

  —

  1,044

  11

  53

  1

  1,219

  34.4

  2,325

  NTL

  1991

  48

  22

  70

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3.1

  68

  Insurance Services Group

  1991

  470

  —

  470

  7

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  81.0

  13

  BTG

  1992

  28

  —

  28

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  10.5

  25

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  1992–93

  704

  70

  774

  29

  —

  —

  2

  15

  —

  47

  6.0

  727

  DVOIT

  1993

  5

  —

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  50.0

  2

  Forward

  1994

  5

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10.9

  4

  DTELS

  1994

  7

  —

  7

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  27.3

  5

  Belfast International Airport

  1994

  33

  15

  48

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  7.4

  44

  British Coal

  1994

  963

  —

  963

  35

  —

  1,633

  —

  —

  —

  1,669

  173.3

  -706

  Notes:

  1 Costs to Government (often some costs will fall to the company).

  2 Excludes costs and proceeds of secondary sales(s).

  3 Since 1979.

  4 Includes up to £5 million to be paid in 1996.

  5 Costs to 31 December 1991 excluding VAT and stamp duty.

  6 Lack of information on VAT and stamp duty costs means this is not available on a consistent basis.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which directorate and commissioner are responsible for taking forward the proposals contained in European Commission document COM (94) 584 on the subject of the establishment of a common system of value added tax. [20981]
  648
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Directorate General XXI of the European Commission has responsibility for "Customs and Indirect Taxation' and for matters relating to VAT. The commissioner responsible for DGXXI is Mr. Monti. Document COM (94) 584 is essentially a report produced by the European Commission on the operation of the VAT system in the Community, with particular reference to the rates of tax applicable in member states. The only specific proposal which is made in the context
  649
  of this document relates to an option for member states to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain non-food agricultural products, such as cut flowers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has yet had chance to consider European Commission Document COM (94) 584 on the subject of the establishment of a common system of value added tax, what response he has made to those parts of that document which propose the abolition of zero rating for new houses; and if he will make a statement; [20977]

  (2) whether it is his policy to endorse the recommendations of the European Commission Document COM (94) 584 on the subject of the establishment of a common system of value added tax in respect of (a) the scheduled establishment in January 1997 of a definitive value added tax regime and (b) the inclusion within that regime of the ending zero rating of all outstanding items including housing. [20978]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Document COM (94) 584 is a routine report produced by the European Commission in accordance with the requirements of the sixth VAT directive. It is largely concerned with the operation of the VAT system within the Community, with particular reference to the rates of tax applicable in member states. I have noted its contents, and, in particular, its principal conclusion that the current VAT rates and structures applicable in the Community do not present any serious problems for the satisfactory operation of the single market.

  The report makes no specific proposals in respect of zero rates, although it makes reference to them in the context of the proposed move to a definitive system for VAT. Separate proposals from the Commission in respect of a definitive system are expected later this year. The Government have already made it clear that a condition of any move to a definitive system would be that such a system made provision for the UK to continue to apply any zero rates which are in force at the time any new system is introduced.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the possible impact on the United Kingdom housing market of the implementation of the proposals of European Commission Document COM (94) 584 on the subject of the establishment of a common system of value added tax; and if he will make a statement. [20980]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Document COM (94) 584 does not contain any specific proposals in relation to the VAT treatment of housing. To the extent that the document addresses the status of zero rates, it does so in the context of the proposed move to a definitive system. Substantive discussions on any such definitive system have yet to begin, but the UK has consistently made it clear that one condition of a move to any such system would be that it made provision for the UK to continue to apply any zero rates which are in force at the time any new system is introduced.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those items which are currently zero rated for value added tax purposes and which would be affected by the recommendations for the ending of such zero rating included within the provisions of European Commission document COM (94) 584 on the subject of the establishment of a common system of value added tax. [20979]
  650
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Document COM (94) 584 makes no specific proposals for the ending of UK zero rates. It addresses only the status of zero rates in the context of the proposed move to a definitive system. The Government have consistently made it clear that, as a condition of any move to a definitive system for VAT, such a system must make provision for the UK to continue to apply any zero rates which are in force at the time any new system is introduced.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to compel directors of building societies to declare publicly in full the benefits they will gain personally when takeovers, amalgamations and conversions into banks are promoted and recommended. [20683]

  Mr. Nelson
  Regulations made under the Building Societies Act 1986 require the disclosure of information about the interests of the directors of a society in any transfer of business, the compensation or other consideration proposed to be paid to directors or other officers of the society attributable to the transfer and the manner in which the salary and other benefits of officers of the society will be affected by appointment to any position by the successor company. This information must be contained in the transfer statement, which is sent to all members eligible to vote.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce changes to the Building Societies Act 1986 so that when the Building Societies ombudsman confirms that maladministration is proven against the interest of a category of saver, all such savers shall be recompensed, and not only those who have registered a complaint. [20975]

  Mr. Nelson
  The purpose of the building societies ombudsmen scheme is to provide an alternative to legal action for settling individual disputes between societies and their customers. Each case must be decided by the ombudsman on its merits and the details of any two complaints are seldom identical, so it would not be appropriate for the decision of the ombudsman in one particular case to be applied automatically to a number of other cases which had not been submitted to him.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of Government borrowing; what was the level in April 1992; what he estimates the level will be in April next year; and at what level of borrowing he thinks it would be prudent to contemplate tax cuts. [21075]

  Mr. Nelson
  The public sector borrowing requirement in 1991–92 was £13.9 billion. In 1994–95, the PSBR was £35.6 billion. The PSBR is expected to fall to £21½ billion in 1995–96 and is projected to be in surplus by the end of the decade.

  Tax cuts will be made only when it is in the best interests of the economy.

  Manufacturers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the relative competitiveness on price of United Kingdom exports of
  651
  manufactures at the current rates of exchange and at those in the fourth quarter of 1986. [21303]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 March,Official Report, column 360.

  Mortgage Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list by region the current average amount where a home owner's mortgage debt exceeds or falls short of the value of their property; what the national average is; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the four previous years; [20721]

  (2) if he will list by region the number of home owners whose current property value is at a negative equity figure; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20729]

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of the number of households with, and the average value per household of, negative equity by region in the years 1990–1994 are shown in the tables. Figures for households with positive equity are not available.

  Estimates of negative equity are sensitive to assumptions made about average house prices. These estimates are based on Department of the Environment house price data.

  On this basis, the number of UK households with negative equity in the fourth quarter of 1994 had fallen by 45 per cent. since its peak in the fourth quarter of 1992. The total value of negative equity fell by 64 per cent. over the same period.

  Table 1: The number of households with negative equity, by region, 1990–94

  Thousands

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East

  129

  230

  425

  447

  361

  Greater London

  20

  61

  141

  148

  107

  South West

  41

  75

  126

  143

  111

  East Anglia

  26

  39

  60

  69

  58

  East Midlands

  16

  28

  42

  50

  22

  West Midlands

  11

  9

  32

  33

  14

  Wales

  5

  11

  12

  14

  11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  5

  23

  10

  21

  North West

  6

  4

  4

  27

  9

  North

  1

  4

  6

  4

  6

  Scotland

  6

  4

  1

  4

  5

  Northern Ireland

  5

  4

  2

  2

  3

  United Kingdom

  270

  475

  875

  952

  729

  Table 2: The average value of negative equity per household, by region, 1990–1994

  £

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East

  3,540

  4,332

  6,306

  6,449

  5,101

  Greater London

  2,455

  3,004

  6,091

  5,648

  3,792

  South West

  3,555

  3,476

  4,314

  4,770

  3,745

  East Anglia

  4,900

  4,795

  5,246

  5,026

  4,603

  East Midlands

  1,080

  1,319

  1,486

  1,813

  1,658

  West Midlands

  1,411

  955

  1,550

  1,496

  1,280

  Wales

  1,178

  2,570

  1,872

  1,692

  1,428

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  488

  602

  1,165

  1,447

  835

  North West

  588

  958

  388

  1,003

  516

  North

  1,004

  1,635

  1,264

  1,414

  730

  652

  Table 2: The average value of negative equity per household, by region, 1990–1994

  £

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Scotland

  649

  721

  168

  634

  463

  Northern Ireland

  809

  1,145

  1,902

  1,365

  1,480

  UK

  3,160

  3,685

  5,295

  5,269

  4,207

  Council Tax Bands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the charter standards for the speed with which the Inland Revenue notifies local authorities of amendments to a property's council tax band. [20690]

  Mr. Nelson
  Listing officers of the Valuation Office Agency are responsible for maintaining council tax bandings.

  There is no charter standard for the speed with which listing officers notify local authorities of amendments to a property's council tax band but they would aim to do this within three months of becoming aware of the need for an amendment.

  Medicash
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fee was paid by Medicash to the Paymaster General's office for sending private health care mailshots to NHS pensioners; and how many were sent out. [20678]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested falls within the operational responsibility of the chief executive of PAYMASTER, whom I have asked to reply.

  Letter from Keith Sullens to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 April 1995:
  I am replying to your written parliamentary question of 21 April, that you asked The Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been asked to reply because it falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Office of HM Paymaster General, known as the Agency PAYMASTER.
  On behalf of Medicash we forwarded informative material to 152,000 pensioners. Medicash were charged £21,379 including VAT.

  British Manufacture and Research Company
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refer the conduct of the former directors of the British Manufacture and Research Company to the Customs and Excise for it to consider an investigation into possible breaches of the arms embargo with Iran. [20487]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 April 1995]: Decisions on whether to investigate possible breaches of UK export controls are for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in exercise of their law enforcement responsibilities. They will consider all relevant information available to them in deciding whether an investigation is appropriate and would welcome any information which the hon. Member or others may provide.

  Cable Companies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the uniform business rate is calculated for franchised
  653
  cable companies; and what is the rate set for 1994–95 and for 1995–96. [19111]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Valuations of the franchised cable companies for uniform business rate purposes, in the absence of reliable rental evidence, have been based on the cost of installing the systems.

  In 1994–95 the rateable value for England for franchised cable companies is estimated to be £5.5 million. For 1995–96 the equivalent figure is estimated to be £22.5 million.

  Public Sector Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is available regarding the expenditure of public sector occupational pension schemes on pensions, lump sums on death and lump sums on retirement,

  £ million

  1991–92 Pensions Members and dependents

  1992–93 Lump sums

  Pensions

  Lump sums Members and dependents

  Death

  Retirement

  Death

  Retirement

  Local Government

  1,760

  34

  478

  1,951

  31

  533

  Teaching

  1,892

  14

  433

  2,092

  16

  526

  NHS

  1,340

  17

  283

  1,497

  18

  317

  Civil Service

  1,670

  32

  271

  1,773

  32

  318

  Armed Forces

  1.109

  190

  1,195

  286

EDUCATION

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if she will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21165]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes there have been in circulars giving guidance to schools concerning the reporting to police of pupils caught with soft drugs. [21279]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department issued for consultation last November a draft circular on drug prevention and schools. That made it clear that my right hon. Friend expects schools to notify the police when illegal drugs are found on a pupil or on school premises. That remains our view. Any instances of possession, use or supply of illegal drugs on school premises should be regarded with the utmost seriousness. The final circular will be published next month.
  654
  comparable to that given for self-administered private sector schemes in table 4.4 of the Government Actuary's report, "Occupational Pension Schemes 1991"; and what was the total expenditure of public sector schemes under each of these heads in 1991 and in the financial year 1992–93. [19990]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Information in the form requested is held centrally only for the public service pension schemes covering local government, teaching, the NHS, the civil service and the armed forces. It is given in the following table. Similar information for other public sector occupational pension schemes may be available from employing authorities or the managers of those schemes.

  The Central Statistical Office publishes information obtained on a different sampling basis from that used by the Government Actuary—its survey of income and expenditure of funded private and public sector schemes in table 4.3 of "Business Monitor MQ5".

  University Science Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many university science parks are now in operation; and how many acres of land they occupy. [21061]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are currently 49 science parks in the UK with UK Science Park Association membership. We understand that there are also a small number of independent science parks. Figures on acreage of land occupied are not available centrally. The total amount of science park property floor space occupied by UKSPA members in 1994 was 675,000 sq. m.

  School Meals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list, in ranking order, the amount of subsidy per pupil for school meals for each local education authority in England and Wales, giving in the form of a table the income, expenditure and the subsidy, both in absolute amounts and per pupil, and relate the absolute subsidy to the cost of teachers' pay award in each authority. [20720]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows, in ranking order of cost per pupil, the expenditure and income in cash terms for local education authority school catering services in 1992–93, the latest year for which final figures are available. The table also shows the notional cost of the increase in teacher salaries in 1995–96 in England only; this information is not collected centrally in Wales. The figures in the table take no account of changes in
  655
  teacher numbers or other factors that affect the teachers' pay bill.

  School catering services

  1992–93 expenditure £000

  1992–93 income £000

  1992–93 difference £000

  1992–93 cost per pupil £

  1995–96 estimated increase teachers' salary £000

  Corporation of London

  108

  18

  90

  433

  12

  Walsall

  11,025

  1,808

  9,217

  206

  1,634

  Lambeth

  5,421

  876

  4,545

  183

  1,271

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,204

  446

  1,758

  182

  450

  Islington

  10,265

  6,332

  3,933

  176

  1,138

  Tower Hamlets

  6,229

  808

  5,421

  172

  1,614

  Hackney

  4,688

  633

  4,055

  168

  1,189

  Manchester

  13,163

  2,349

  10,814

  151

  2,769

  Hammersmith

  2,737

  606

  2,131

  150

  709

  Southwark

  5,304

  1,022

  4,282

  145

  1,214

  Camden

  3,536

  562

  2,974

  140

  1,037

  Derbyshire

  28,192

  9,873

  18,319

  136

  5,273

  Wandsworth

  4,079

  991

  3,088

  135

  1,170

  Greenwich

  5,388

  1,034

  4,354

  125

  1,620

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,554

  1,838

  4,716

  119

  1,531

  Haringey

  4,286

  1,118

  3,168

  115

  1,303

  Lewisham

  4,471

  1,063

  3,408

  111

  1,237

  North Tyneside

  5,071

  1,673

  3,398

  110

  1,226

  Knowsley

  3,549

  607

  2,942

  110

  986

  Gwynedd

  5,814

  2,021

  3,793

  108

  Humberside

  21,208

  6,743

  14,465

  103

  5,209

  Dyfed

  8,420

  2,599

  5,821

  103

  Newham

  4,873

  1,063

  3,810

  102

  1,555

  Waltham Forest

  4,388

  1,240

  3,148

  102

  1,388

  Cleveland

  14,836

  4,530

  10,306

  101

  3,839

  Bradford

  12,781

  4,355

  8,426

  101

  3,212

  Mid Glamorgan

  14,688

  5,097

  9,591

  101

  Durham

  15,029

  5,615

  9,414

  101

  3,449

  Brent

  4,370

  1,147

  3,223

  100

  1,371

  Wakefield

  8,500

  3,689

  4,811

  98

  1,837

  South Tyneside

  3,887

  1,457

  2,430

  98

  896

  Barnsley

  5,014

  1,829

  3,185

  98

  1,131

  Wolverhampton

  5,017

  1,422

  3,595

  94

  1,490

  Birmingham

  22,908

  7,046

  15,862

  93

  6,401

  Kirklees

  9,161

  3,588

  5,573

  93

  2,341

  Westminster

  2,045

  536

  1,509

  92

  820

  Rochdale

  4,935

  1,836

  3,099

  91

  1,249

  Salford

  4,931

  1,757

  3,174

  86

  1,459

  Isles of Scilly

  43

  19

  24

  86

  17

  Sandwell

  6,015

  1,929

  4,086

  84

  1,893

  Ealing

  4,261

  1,391

  2,870

  83

  1,370

  Avon

  17,438

  6,477

  10,961

  82

  5,068

  Liverpool

  8,782

  2,456

  6,326

  81

  2,993

  Sheffield

  8,824

  3,383

  5,441

  79

  2,681

  Bolton

  6,075

  2,672

  3,403

  78

  1,656

  Powys

  1,476

  58

  1,418

  77

  Nottinghamshire

  19,059

  7,560

  11,499

  77

  5,759

  Coventry

  4,716

  1,062

  3,654

  76

  1,924

  Doncaster

  7,620

  3,894

  3,726

  75

  1,722

  Gateshead

  3,331

  1,124

  2,207

  75

  1,168

  Gwent

  9,532

  4,074

  5,458

  75

  Suffolk

  7,115

  526

  6,589

  74

  3,556

  Enfield

  4,740

  1,812

  2,928

  74

  1,613

  Tameside

  5,265

  2,685

  2,580

  72

  1,299

  Northumberland

  7,386

  3,854

  3,532

  71

  1,768

  South Glamorgan

  7,185

  2,533

  4,652

  71

  Bury

  3,782

  1,890

  1,892

  69

  953

  Barking

  2,572

  898

  1,674

  69

  963

  East Sussex

  10,152

  4,322

  5,830

  68

  3,252

  Hounslow

  3,328

  1,120

  2,208

  68

  1,374

  Sefton

  4,799

  1,692

  3,107

  68

  1,655

  St. Helens

  3,271

  1,274

  1,997

  67

  1,146

  Leeds

  12,622

  5,602

  7,020

  66

  4,081

  Lancashire

  24,451

  10,704

  13,747

  65

  8,188

  656 657

  School catering services

  1992–93 expenditure £000

  1992–93 income £000

  1992–93 difference £000

  1992–93 cost per pupil £

  1995–96 estimated increase teachers' salary £000

  Bedfordshire

  11,733

  6,293

  5,440

  64

  3,292

  Sutton

  2,037

  764

  1,273

  64

  735

  Norfolk

  11,020

  4,801

  6,219

  64

  3,664

  Barnet

  4,669

  2,200

  2,469

  63

  1,741

  Trafford

  3,432

  1,531

  1,901

  62

  1,115

  Calderdale

  3,527

  1,645

  1,882

  62

  1,141

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,492

  440

  1,052

  61

  732

  Stockport

  4,003

  1,342

  2,661

  61

  1,639

  Dudley

  3,623

  968

  2,655

  59

  1,732

  Hertfordshire

  18,214

  9,785

  8,429

  59

  5,523

  Clywd

  7,108

  3,267

  3,841

  59

  West Glamorgan

  4,983

  1,575

  3,408

  59

  Wirral

  5,520

  2,441

  3,079

  59

  2,017

  Wigan

  5,414

  2,485

  2,929

  58

  2,038

  Isle of Wight

  1,017

  24

  993

  56

  684

  Croydon

  4,510

  2,345

  2,165

  52

  1,590

  Warwickshire

  6,916

  3,393

  3,523

  51

  2,563

  Surrey

  13,850

  8,155

  5,695

  50

  4,286

  Shropshire

  7,134

  4,063

  3,071

  50

  2,469

  Cambridgeshire

  9,338

  4,631

  4,707

  49

  3,420

  Cornwall

  5,394

  2,088

  3,306

  49

  2,446

  Hampshire

  20,463

  10,198

  10,265

  48

  7,944

  Leicestershire

  10,912

  4,205

  6,707

  48

  5,415

  Devon

  9,541

  3,075

  6,466

  48

  5,053

  Rotherham

  4,869

  2,853

  2,016

  48

  1,677

  Sunderland

  4,485

  2,251

  2,234

  46

  1,814

  Oxfordshire

  4,949

  1,712

  3,237

  44

  2,882

  Bromley

  1,180

  0

  1,180

  43

  1,045

  Solihull

  3,353

  2,013

  1,340

  41

  1,259

  Cumbria

  5,405

  2,608

  2,797

  40

  2,673

  Oldham

  3,981

  2,377

  1,604

  40

  1,625

  Staffordshire

  15,433

  8,944

  6,489

  40

  5,690

  Havering

  1,527

  130

  1,397

  40

  1,402

  Cheshire

  11,863

  6,169

  5,694

  37

  5,453

  Wiltshire

  2,844

  -18

  2,862

  36

  2,967

  Redbridge

  1,198

  0

  1,198

  36

  1,359

  West Sussex

  4,528

  1,173

  3,355

  36

  3,614

  Essex

  12,270

  5,665

  6,605

  33

  7,887

  North Yorkshire

  6,815

  3,677

  3,138

  31

  3,890

  Gloucestershire

  2,075

  203

  1,872

  28

  2,470

  Somerset

  1,763

  56

  1,707

  27

  2,365

  Kent

  5,323

  0

  5,323

  26

  7,259

  Dorset

  2,102

  107

  1,995

  25

  2,814

  Kingston upon Thames

  496

  89

  407

  24

  752

  Hillingdon

  596

  24

  572

  24

  926

  Northamptonshire

  2,151

  219

  1,932

  22

  3,318

  Buckinghamshire

  2,111

  131

  1,980

  21

  3,289

  Harrow

  653

  135

  518

  19

  1,083

  Berkshire

  1,940

  61

  1,879

  19

  3,776

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,157

  580

  1,577

  16

  3,763

  Merton

  1,037

  694

  343

  16

  970

  Lincolnshire

  1,282

  365

  917

  12

  2,676

  Bexley

  1,748

  1,683

  65

  2

  1,219

  Total

  782,880

  294,230

  488,650

  68

  265,910

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the budget for the employment of staff in the education department of North Yorkshire county council for each of the last 10 years. [20830]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows North Yorkshire county council expenditure on staff involved in service strategy and regulation, management and administration,658
  inspection and advisory service in cash and real terms from 1984–85 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the budget for the employment of staff in the education department of North Yorkshire county council for each of the last 10 years. [20830]
  659
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows North Yorkshire county council expenditure on staff involved in service strategy and regulation, management and administration, inspection and advisory service in cash and real terms from 1984–85 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  North Yorkshire

  Administration and inspection expenditure

  Total (cash terms) £000

  Total (1994–95 prices) £000

  1984–85

  2,850

  4,672

  1985–86

  2,893

  4,496

  1986–87

  3,024

  4,563

  1987–88

  3,340

  4,785

  1988–89

  3,412

  4,581

  1989–90

  4,093

  5,136

  1990–91

  3,931

  4,567

  1991–92

  4,179

  4,568

  1992–93

  3,652

  3,839

  1993–941

  3,980

  4,060

  1 Provisional.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the cost of adopting a policy which ensures that no class sizes in state schools exceed 30 pupils. [20463]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The financial implications of any policy setting arbitrary limits on class size would depend on the resulting decisions taken at school level about the deployment of teachers and pupils.

  Education Expenditure, Leicestershire
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much is budgeted to be paid directly to schools in Leicestershire in the current financial year; how much will be spent elsewhere by the LEA on central administration or for other purposes; and what were the figures for each of the four previous years. [19934]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figures in the table are derived from the budget and outturn statements published by the Leicestershire local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of schools covered by its scheme for the local management of schools. The general schools budget represents total expenditure, or planned expenditure, on the authority"s county, voluntary and—from 1 April 1994—special schools; the aggregated schools budget is that portion of the GSB which is allocated to the schools themselves. The difference represents funding retained by the authority for central administration and other purposes relating to the schools covered by the local management of schools scheme.

  Financial year

  GSB (£k)

  ASB (£000)

  1995–96 (budget)

  318,103

  237,430

  1994–95 (budget)

  319,137

  232,660

  1993–94 (outturn)

  295,008

  220,634

  1992–93 (outturn)

  310,190

  224,483

  1991–92 (outturn)

  296,805

  204,956

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equalisation Reserves
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be issuing a consultation document on the subject of equalisation reserves. [22006]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In his speech on Second Reading of the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) indicated that the Government proposed to issue a consultation document in the spring to invite comments on proposals for regulations introducing a requirement for equalisation reserves for some types of non-life business. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the DTI and Inland Revenue are today jointly issuing the consultation document to which he referred. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The insurance industry has argued for some years that it is at a disadvantage compared to its overseas competitors because some countries allow tax relief on transfers made into equalisation reserves for non-life business. These representations have been made in the light of the emerging single European market in insurance, and in particular the EC third non-life directive, which came into force on 1 July 1994 and which enables insurers to operate anywhere throughout the Community under a single authorisation and regulation by their home state. In some EC member states insurers are able to build up equalisation reserves free of tax to assist them in responding to exceptional claims and many UK companies believe this gives such companies a competitive advantage both in European and world insurance markets.

  Claims equalisation reserves are used to set aside funds in good years to assist the meeting of losses in bad ones, resulting in a smoothing of insurers' underwriting results over time. Much insurance business that can suffer catastrophe or exceptional claims is written as one year contracts and taxed on the results for a single year. It is in the nature of such business, however, that its true profitability emerges only over a longer period. It is therefore argued that tax should be able to be deferred in respect of prudential sums set aside to reserves in good years since such sums are not really profit at all but will be needed to pay claims in bad years.

  The supervisory proposals in the consultation document could be the basis of regulations if the provisions of the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill become law. The consultation document suggests that it would be appropriate for companies writing certain types of business to set aside a certain proportion of net written premium each year up to a maximum limit based on the amount of premium written over five years. Withdrawals would be triggered when a company's claims ratio for a financial year exceeded a set amount. The types of business which it is proposed be covered are: property, consequential loss, mortgage indemnity, marine, nuclear, proportional reinsurance of that business and all non-proportional reinsurance.

  I am grateful to the industry, and in particular to the Association of British Insurers, for the work done to assist the development of these proposals. We hope that all interested parties will consider the proposals carefully and indicate whether they are content to proceed on that basis.

  661
  Representations should be sent by 7 July 1995 either to the DTI or the Inland Revenue.

  Radio Spectrum Review
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government's response to stage 3 Radio spectrum review report will be published. [22007]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am pleased to announce that, in agreement with the Secretaries of State for Defence, for the Home Department, for Scotland and for National Heritage, the Government's response to the recommendations made in the report of the radio spectrum review committee, "Stage 3: 28–470 MHz', will be published today. The review committee was chaired by Sir Colin Fielding and its report presented to Ministers on 19 January 1994.

  Today's response and the progress which will be made in implementing the recommendations is a further example of the steps we are taking to improve the efficiency of spectrum management and usage in the UK to promote competition and choice for the benefit of all users of the radio spectrum.

  The review committee made 28 recommendations, 24 of which have been accepted by the Government without reservation; the remaining four are accepted in principle. The recommendations cover both defence and civil use of the review spectrum and a number of them have already been acted upon. Part of an existing defence frequency band has already been released for a new digital radio broadcasting service for the UK. Further defence spectrum has been released in co-operation with NATO to provide the emergency services with an opportunity to develop a new radio system. This in turn will also assist with the resolution of the long-standing continental radio interference problems in the UHF frequency bands in England and Wales.

  Some of the review committee's recommendations addressed spectrum management issues which were also the subject of the consultative document on the future management of the radio spectrum. Therefore it was decided to delay the completion of the Government's response to the stage three review until after consideration of the submissions to the consultative document.

  Cable Television Operators
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the damage to trees in the borough of Havering by the work undertaken by Encom; and what steps have been taken to prevent further damage. [20719]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Havering borough council, in conjunction with Encom, has carried out a survey of 14,000 trees in the borough to assess damage to trees by cabling activity. The company have agreed that any tree damaged as a result of their contractors' activity will be replaced by two new specimens. A code of practice has been agreed with the borough council to minimise the potential for further damage. The code commits Encom's contractors to hand digging in the vicinity of trees.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers local authorities have to control the activities of cable television operators within their area; and what residual powers Her Majesty's Government have in this area. [20717]
  662
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The street works activities of cable TV operators, in common with other statutory undertakers, are governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations. Local authorities may bring prosecutions under the Act for offences which include failure to reinstate, failure to comply with requirements on reinstatement materials and workmanship standards, failure to sign, guard and light the works as required and failure to co-operate with the street authority. The Telecommunications Act 1984, under which cable TV operators are licensed to install and run their systems, empowers the Secretary of State to modify the system installation conditions of cable operators' licences should he consider it expedient to do so.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring his Department carries out to ensure that cable television companies do not abuse their franchise by causing serious, unnecessary and unacceptable disruption to other local services and local residents; what recourse is available where this happens; and if he will make a statement. [19003]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Cable TV operators are licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to install their systems in the maintainable highway and, with appropriate consent, on private land. Their licences include conditions designed to ensure that they operate in a responsible manner and adhere to all relevant street works legislation. Street works in the maintainable highway are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations, which is enforced by local highway authorities. The Act imposes a duty on the cable operator to co-operate with the local highway authority in the interests of safety, to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street and to protect the structure of the street and the integrity of apparatus in it. The DTI monitors the performance of individual cable operators using a variety of statistical and empirical measures. The Department, in conjunction with local authorities, take action to ensure street works do not cause unnecessary disruption.

  Cable Communications (Schools)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mrs. Butler) of 5 April,Official Report, column 1722, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Cable Communications Association undertaking to ensure that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises will be connected. [21023]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I welcome the decision by the Cable Communications Association to offer a free connecting to every school passed by cable TV networks. More than 350 schools are already benefiting from this policy, which was agreed by the association's board on 16 February. A copy of the policy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on support for the shipbuilding industry from 1 January 1996. [20733]

  Mr. Eggar
  With the exception of the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home credit guarantee scheme, no changes are planned to the Department's policies on the shipbuilding industry after 1 January 1996.
  663
  The shipbuilding intervention fund scheme will be abolished from that date. The United Kingdom will abide by the terms of the OECD's agreement respecting competitive conditions in the commercial shipbuilding and repair industry, signed in December 1994, which abolishes all direct subsidies to these industries on a multilateral basis. However, payments made under commitments entered into before 1 January 1996 may be continued until 31 December 1998.

  The future of the home credit guarantee scheme is being reviewed in the light of the OECD agreement.

  Land Sales (British Coal)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify all the parcels of land currently being offered by sale by British Coal. [20829]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation is considering the composition of the property packages which it is to offer for sale.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance his Department gives to the Post Office regarding consultation procedures for proposed changes to Crown post offices. [20890]

  Mr. Page
  The implementation of any changes to Crown post offices is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices he expects there to be in each of the next five years. [20891]

  Mr. Page
  The ownership of its outlets is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received from members of the public regarding converting Crown post offices to agency status; how many of those have been in favour of such a change; and how many against. [20893]

  Mr. Page
  Since the Post Office started its Crown conversion programme in 1989 my Department has received a wide range of correspondence commenting on the programme, most commonly on proposals for individual offices. However, summary records of the numbers of letters received and the views expressed in them are not maintained.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he issues on the categories of shops and businesses in which it is(a) appropriate and (b) inappropriate to situate post offices. [20894]

  Mr. Page
  The location and ownership of its outlets is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available. [20895]

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that the information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Number of Crown Post Offices

  31 March 1979

  1,580

  3 April 1985

  1,553

  28 March 1990

  1,339

  28 February 1995

  735

  664
  The total number of post offices offering the full range of Post Office services is currently 1,506.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that Post Office guidelines about suitable outlets for agency post offices are published in the Official Report and placed in the Library. [21026]

  Mr. Page
  The location and ownership of its outlets is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Trade Visit (South Africa)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcomes of the recent visit by the trade Minister to South Africa and on future plans for trade development with South Africa. [19913]

  Mr. Needham
  During my visit to South Africa in March, 80 business men were involved in technical seminars on the royal yacht, on-shore business-to-business meetings and meetings with key figures in the South African Government of National Unity.

  Nearly 50 of the business party travelled to Johannesburg during the middle of the week to discuss issues with the financial community and to talk to their opposite numbers in the electricity utility, Eskom, brewing conglomerate, South African Breweries, and urban regeneration planners and engineers at the Johannesburg Transitional metropolitan council.

  British companies announced a series of major deals during the week which are expected to lead millions of pounds of additional business.

  An Anglo-South African partnership initiative is to be established, comprising some of the most important business men in both countries, which will promote trade between the two countries. This is expected to be formally inaugurated in September, when we will be staging a major "British Week" in Johannesburg. This will feature sporting and cultural events as well as a major all-British trade exhibition under the title "Britain means Business'.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Service and Police Raids
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the named offender procedure with regard to immigration service and police raids. [20889]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no plans to change the present policy that in all cases every reasonable effort should be made to establish the names of people whom it is suspected will be found and to check them against immigration records. Visits to private addresses will continue to be authorised only where there is good reason to suspect that an identified person is there in breach of the immigration laws. However, in relation to places of work, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have decided that in future, where there is reason to believe that efforts to enlist the co-operation of the employer would undermine the effectiveness of a planned operation, visits will be authorised where there is apparently reliable information that immigration offenders will be found.
  665
  Particular account will be taken of whether there is a history of the premises being used by offenders.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the closed circuit television bids which were considered to be of good or very good quality. [21024]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information, by police authority area, is as follows:

  Avon and Somerset

  Easton and St. Agnes, Bristol

  Spike Island, Bristol

  Clifton, Bristol

  Bath

  Bridgewater bus station, Somerset

  Bridgewater railway station, Somerset

  Nailsea, Bristol

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford

  Cranfield University

  Sandy

  Cambridgeshire

  Ely

  Huntingdon, Ramsey, St. Ives and St. Neots

  March

  Peterborough

  Cambridge

  Wisbech

  Cheshire

  Chester

  Congleton

  Macclesfield

  Neston

  Northwich

  Cleveland

  Easterside library and Redcar library

  Billingham

  Thornaby

  Redcar further education centre

  Skippers Lane industrial estate, Langbaurgh

  Mill Lane primary school, Stockton

  Teesside retail park, Thornaby

  Cumbria

  Carlisle

  Penrith

  West Cumberland hospital

  Derbyshire

  Chesterfield

  Derby

  Dronfield and Killamarsh sports centers

  Ilkeston

  Buxton, Glossop, Chapel en le Frith, New Mills and Whaley

  Bridge

  Long Eaton

  Devon and Cornwall

  Barnstaple

  Bodmin

  Exeter

  Falmouth

  South Hams hospital, Kingsbridge

  Newquary

  Truro, Devon

  Westland upper school, Torquay

  Torquay town centre

  Tiverton town centre

  Tiverton business centre

  666
  St. Austell town center

  Dorset

  Boscombe town centre

  Durham

  Darlington centre

  Durham city centre

  Chester le Street town centre

  Bishop Auckland town centre

  Dyfed

  Haverfordwest town centre

  Carmarthen town centre

  Essex

  Laindon shopping centre

  Harlow town centre

  The Blackshots centre, Thurrock

  Chelmsford town centre

  Shenfield and Brentwood centre

  Gloucestershire

  Stroud town centre

  Gloucester city centre

  Dursley town centre

  Cirencester town centre

  Cheltenham town centre

  Rowanfield infants and junior schools, Cheltenham

  Beaufort Community School, Gloucester

  Greater Manchester

  Richmond Park estate, Ashton under Lyne

  Bolton town centre

  Mancroft avenue housing estate, Bolton

  Bury town centre

  Middleton town centre

  Rochdale town centre

  Stepping Hill general hospital, Stockport

  Droylsden town centre

  Denton town centre

  Ashton-under-Lyne town centre

  Stalybridge town centre

  Tameside business development centre

  Hyde town centre

  Saymour Park primary school, Old Trafford

  Westhoughton town centre

  Wigan town centre

  Marsh green, Wigan

  Howe Bridge sports centre car park, Wigan

  Wythenshawe hospital

  Wythenshawe park

  Wythenshawe town centre

  Gwent

  Cwmbran

  Gwent-Bettsw school

  Cwmbran-Croesyceilog school

  Ebbw Vale-Rassau industrial estate

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke

  Eastleigh

  Gosport

  Southsea-Fawcett Road shopping centre

  Havant

  Portsmouth-Kingston road

  Portsmouth-NHS trust hospital

  Portsmouth-The Mountbatten centre

  Portsmouth-Commercial road

  Southampton

  Southsea

  Hertfordshire

  North Herts-Hitchen and Letchworth business park

  Stevenage

  Welwyn Garden city

  667
  Humberside

  Brigg

  Cleethorpes

  Driffield

  Goole

  Grimsby-Yarborough estate -Grimsby general hospital

  Hull-Sutlon Fields industrial estate

  Kent

  Ashford

  Dartford

  Dover and Deal

  Folkestone

  Gillingham

  Maidstone

  Ramsgate

  Rochester

  Sandwich

  Swale

  Tonbridge and West Mailing

  Lancashire

  Blackpool

  Burnley

  Chorley

  Clitheroe

  Lancaster

  Morecambe

  Leicestershire

  Ashby de la Zouch

  Loughborough

  Market Harborough

  Melton Mowbray

  Moira village

  Lincolnshire

  Boston-Kirton

  Boston

  Donington

  Gainsborough

  Merseyside

  Bootle leisure centre and North park

  Huyton sports centre car park

  Kirkby railway station

  Liverpool

  Picton sports centre, Liverpool

  Five Schools in Sefton

  St. Helens

  Southport and Formby maternity unit

  Metropolitan

  Prince of Wales drive, Battersea

  Brent

  Bromley, Beckenham and Orpington

  Deptford, Lewisham and Catford

  Earl's Court road

  Edgware general hospital and Barnet general hospital

  Edmonton green

  Elephant and Castle

  Erith

  Greenwich

  Harrow

  Hillingdon-mobile system

  Hounslow

  Archway mall, Islington

  Patrick Conan house, Islington

  Calshot neighbourhood, Islington

  Market estate and St. Luke's estate, Islington

  King's College hospital, Denmark Hill

  Morden

  Henniker point, Newham

  668

  Rathbone estate, Newham

  Plaistow

  Woodside Park synagogue, North Finchley

  Richmond

  South Westminster

  Sunbury cross, Spelthorne

  Northern wards of London borough of Sutton

  Mayday University hospital, Thornton Heath

  Chrisp street, Tower Hamlets

  Plough lane, Wimbledon

  Wood Green

  North Walthamstow industrial estates

  Potters lane subway, Wandsworth

  Norfolk

  Dereham, Swaffham, Walton, Thetford and Attleborough

  Hardwick industrial estate, King's Lynn

  North Lynn youth and community centre

  Northamptonshire

  Daventry

  Kettering

  Wellingborough road, Northampton

  Northumbria

  Coronation street car park, South Shields

  Saville street and Winchester street car parks. South Shields

  Fielding court, South Shields

  Multi-storey car park. South Shields

  Alnwick and Amble

  Berwick upon Tweed

  Blaydon

  Team Valley trading estate, Gateshead

  Gateshead

  Hebburn, south Tyneside

  Jarrow, including community centre, South Shields

  Jarrow town centre tower blocks, South Shields

  Hexham, Northumberland

  Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne

  New Bridge Street car park, Newcastle upon Tyne

  Silksworth sports complex, Sunderland

  Monkwearmouth/Roker seafront, Sunderland

  Whitley Bay, North Tyneside

  North Wales

  Caernarfon, Gwynedd

  Seven schools in Clwyd

  Colwyn bay

  Rhyl

  Wrexham, Clwyd

  North Yorkshire

  Boroughbridge

  Harrogate

  Rydale—Malton Pickering

  Scarborough

  York

  Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield

  Nottingham—Mobile CCTV unit

  South Wales

  Merthyr Tydfill

  Neath

  Swansea—enterprise park

  Taff Ely—railway line

  West Glamorgan—mobile CCTV unit

  Rhondda—Ystrad

  South Yorkshire

  Doncaster—Brodsworth, community centre and playing field

  Doncaster—Balby Street school

  Doncaster

  Hillsborough

  669

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Sheffield—industrial estates

  Staffordshire

  Burton Upon Trent

  Lichfield

  South Staffordshire—five schools

  Tamworth

  Suffolk

  Forest Heath—Newmarket

  Mildenhall

  Brandon

  Ipswich

  Surrey

  Addlestone

  Chertsey

  Egham

  Guildford

  Kingston

  Sussex

  Eastbourne

  Hailsham

  Hastings

  Horsham

  Newhaven

  Worthing

  Thames Valley

  Banbury, Oxfordshire

  Bicester, Oxfordshire

  Kildington, Oxfordshire

  Chesham, Buckinghamshire

  Newbury, Berkshire

  Oxford

  Windsor, Maidenhead and Eton

  Wokingham, Berkshire

  High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Stratford on Avon

  West Mercia

  Bridgnorth endowed school, Shropshire

  Bridgnorth, Shropshire

  Hereford

  Ledbury, Herefordshire

  Shrewsbury

  Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire

  Whitchurch, Shropshire

  Worcester

  West Midlands

  Villa road and Lozells road, Birmingham

  Cannon Hill park, Birmingham

  Coventry

  Rugby

  Solihull

  Stockingford middle school, Nuneaton, Warwickshire

  Broad street car park, Wolverhampton

  Yew Tree Estate, Walsall

  West Bromwich

  Cape hill, Sandwell

  Gallon village community centre, Sandwell

  West Yorkshire

  Bingley

  Canterbury estate, Bradford

  Keighley, Bradford

  Elland

  Halifax

  Kettlethorpe high school, Wakefield

  Outwood Grange school, Wakefield

  670
  Wiltshire

  Salisbury

  West Wiltshire—mobile system

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 854, what criteria were used by Ministers to decide which of the bids for closed circuit TV funding assessed by the panel as being of good or very good quality would receive funding. [21025]

  Mr. Maclean
  The criteria used to assess all of the bids for funding for CCTV in the recent challenge competition were those published in the bidding guidance document issued on 9 November 1994.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has sought the opinion of the Merseyside police authority on the Protect-U-Rite private security company based in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [21145]

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of any link between the setting up of a private security company on Merseyside and the reduction in the Merseyside police budget and if he will make a statement. [21147]

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no link between the setting up of private security companies in a particular area and the budget of the local police force. Merseyside police authority has taken advantage of the additional funds made available for 1995–96 and has set this year's force budget at £218.56 million. That is an increase of £5.33 million, or 2.5 per cent., over the base budget for 1994–95.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the process used by private security companies to check on possible criminal records of their employees; and if he will make a statement. [21148]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for private security companies themselves to decide what checks to carry out in assessing the suitability of prospective employees. They do not at present have access to criminal records, but we are looking at the case for such access as part of our wider review of the arrangements for disclosure of criminal records.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21160]

  Mr. Howard
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Advisory NDPBs required by statute to publish their advice

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  (b) Advisory NDPBs required by statute to publish an annual report

  The Animal Procedures Committee

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  The Parole Board

  671
  (c) Advisory NDPBs required by statute to lay an annual report before Parliament

  The Animal Procedures Committee

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  The Parole Board

  (d) Advisory NDPBs with a statutory basis

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Animal Procedures Committee

  Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Parole Board

  Poisons Board

  Police Negotiating Board

  Computer Pornography
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been trained to deal with computer pornography on the Internet; and how many of these are outside the specialist obscene publication branches in London and Manchester. [21187]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for chief officers to decide, in the light of their operational requirements, what training should be given on detecting computer pornography. Records of the number of officers so trained are not held centrally.

  Extradition (Singapore)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the grounds for extraditing a British citizen to Singapore from the United Kingdom. [21128]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with Singapore are governed by part III of the Extradition Act 1989. This permits extradition for offences committed within Singapore's legal jurisdiction, provided that a prima facie case can be shown, that the alleged offence carries a sentence of one year or more on conviction and that the alleged offence would also be an offence in this country.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to report to Parliament the initial findings of his officials' monitoring exercise on the impact of the national lottery on charities and charity lotteries. [20987]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will wish to report on the level of charitable income following the introduction of the national lottery once he has sufficient relevant data and after it has been analysed. The Government are now looking into the practicalities of the necessary data collection and my right hon. and learned Friend will decide on the timing of his report in the light of that consideration.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his officials are engaged in the exercise to monitor the impact of the national lottery on charities and charity lotteries. [21002]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Consideration is still being given to how best to measure any changes in charitable income 672
  following the introduction of the national lottery and to the staffing implications of the exercise.

  Mr. Nicholas Hill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Nicholas Anthony Hill, convicted in 1990 at Birmingham Crown court, will be considered for(a) parole and (b) weekend leave; and what is his estimated date of release. [20646]

  Mr. Maclean
  The third review of Mr. Hill's eligibility for parole is currently under way, his previous two applications having been unsuccessful. Under the new system of release on temporary licence, which came into effect on 25 April, Mr. Hill is eligible at the same time to be considered for resettlement licence although he has no automatic entitlement to it. If he is not granted parole, Mr. Hill will be released from prison on 20 April 1998.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received by the Metropolitan police for police recruitment in each of the last 12 months. [20650]

  Mr. Maclean
  The following is the information requested:

  Month

  Male

  Female

  April 1994

  16

  8

  May 1994

  19

  7

  June 1994

  2,015

  557

  July 1994

  1,323

  322

  August 1994

  59

  12

  September 1994

  846

  249

  October 1994

  759

  233

  November 1994

  378

  183

  December 1994

  1,060

  276

  January 1995

  37

  8

  February 1995

  493

  138

  March 1995

  1,178

  373

  These figures exclude applications to join the special constabulary.

  Illegal Passengers
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many immigration surveillance units, equipped with trained dogs, are currently monitoring the entry through the port of Dover of heavy goods vehicles; [20749]

  (2) how many immigration surveillance units, equipped with trained dogs, are currently monitoring the entry of heavy goods vehicles through east coast ports between the Thames ports in London and North End and Newcastle; [20751]

  (3) how many immigration surveillance units, equipped with trained dogs, are currently monitoring the transportation of heavy goods vehicles through the channel tunnel; and where those units are based; [20747]
  673
  (4) how many immigration surveillance units, equipped with trained dogs, are currently monitoring the entry of heavy goods vehicles through the channel ports, from Ramsgate to Plymouth. [20748]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There is one unit, based at Dover, equipped with dogs specially trained for the purpose of detecting people hidden in vehicles. The use of dogs in this way forms part of the operational measures to combat illegal entry. In addition to the ports in the south-east district, the dogs have been deployed at Felixstowe, Harwich, Newhaven, Southampton, Portsmouth and Poole.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what equipment is being used in and around the channel tunnel to detect the possible presence of illegal passengers in the freight containers of heavy goods vehicles using the tunnel. [20760]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No special equipment is used by the immigration service in and around the channel tunnel in order to detect the presence of illegal entrants. However, there is scope for using specially trained dogs at Cheriton for this purpose.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many immigration officers currently employed on permanent contracts to monitor the movement of illegal passengers are based permanently at(a) Ramsgate, (b) Dover, (c) Newhaven, (d) Portsmouth, (e) Southampton, (f) Poole and (g) Plymouth; [20750]

  (2) how many United Kingdom immigration officers are currently employed on permanent contracts to monitor the movement of illegal passengers in and around the channel tunnel and where those officers are based. [20746]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The detection of passengers attempting to enter illegally forms part of the duties of all immigration officers. The number of immigration officers in post on 31 March 1995 at the ports cited was as follows:(a) Ramsgate: 12, (b) Dover: 188.5, (c) Newhaven: 18.5, (d) Portsmouth: 30, (e) Southampton: 11, (f) Poole: 3, and (g) Plymouth: 8. There were a further 62 immigration officers based at Waterloo international terminal and 22.5 at Cheriton. Immigration officers based at Dover and Cheriton staff the channel tunnel control at Coquelles in France.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been apprehended during 1994–95 by the United Kingdom authorities(a) at a port of entry in the act of attempting to obtain illegal entry to the United Kingdom by hiding in the freight containers of heavy goods vehicles and (b) at inland locations, the vehicles having passed through the port of entry. [20761]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A total of 1,742 illegal entrants who arrived by clandestine means were detected in the year ended 31 December 1994, the latest period for which statistics—currently provisional—are available. A breakdown of this figure by method of clandestine entry and by port of detection is not available.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking in co-operation with Europol/Interpol and with his counterparts in other EU member states to combat the activities of criminals in Italy and France engaged in smuggling illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. [20759]
  674
  Mr. Maclean
  At their meeting on 9 and 10 March 1995, European Union Interior and Justice Ministers agreed to extend the remit of the Europol drugs unit to include the exchange and analysis of intelligence on crimes involving illegal immigration networks and the criminal organisations involved. Through the national criminal intelligence service UK police and immigration officers are actively involved in planning the work of the EDU in this field. There are already good bilateral links between the UK, France and Italy.

  Identity Cards
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the relevance of the expertise of United Kingdom Passport Agency staff to work involved in any national identity card scheme which he is considering announcing. [20767]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am well aware of the valuable expertise which the Passport Agency has available in considering applications for and issuing identity documents in the form of British passports. Consequently, my officials have kept closely in touch with the Passport Agency in preparing the forthcoming Green Paper on identity cards.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the estimated costs of introducing comprehensive identity card schemes for the United Kingdom utilising(a) a smart card capable of being processed by electronic equipment and (b) a standard paper document. [20770]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To establish a separate comprehensive identity card scheme covering all the adult population has been estimated to cost in the region of £600 million or possibly more depending on the type of scheme. These costs could be substantially lower if the card were associated with an existing form of official documentation. The precise cost would depend on the detailed arrangements, including the type of card—a "smart" card incorporating an electronic chip could cost up to £5 to produce compared with up to £1 for an ordinary plastic photocard—and the nature of the scheme.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will be publishing a consultation document on identity cards shortly which will contain some estimates of costs of different kinds of schemes.

  Firearms
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed gun dealers are located within the Metropolitan police area. [20787]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearm certificate statistics, England and Wales 1993", issue 22/94, table 5, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) firearm and (b) shotgun licences were issued in the Metropolitan police area during the last year for which figures are available. [20785]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearm certificate statistics, England and Wales 1993", issue 22/94, tables 2 and 4, copies of which can be found in the Library.
  675

  Table 2: Firearm certificates: applications for grant, renewal and variation, granted and refused; revocations; certificates on issue at 31 December by police force area

  England and Wales 1993

  Numbers

  Grant of new certificate

  Applications Renewal of certificate

  Variation of certificate

  Police force area

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Revocations

  Firearm certificates on issues at 31 December

  Avon and Somerset

  267

  3

  1,508

  11

  143

  8

  6

  5,306

  Bedfordshire

  121

  3

  386

  2

  44

  2

  4

  1,374

  Cambridgeshire

  196

  2

  796

  5

  88

  2

  6

  2,951

  Cheshire

  200

  4

  700

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2,642

  Cleveland

  68

  —

  196

  —

  45

  —

  —

  855

  Cumbria

  190

  —

  957

  —

  151

  2

  2

  3,324

  Derbyshire

  255

  —

  612

  —

  70

  —

  3

  2,323

  Devon and Cornwall

  606

  5

  2,307

  3

  201

  4

  9

  8,595

  Dorset

  204

  2

  740

  2

  78

  —

  —

  2,511

  Durham

  146

  —

  591

  —

  53

  —

  1

  2,114

  Essex

  323

  4

  1,181

  8

  381

  —

  8

  4,125

  Gloucestershire

  170

  1

  710

  —

  168

  —

  2

  2,443

  Greater Manchester

  256

  1

  653

  —

  52

  —

  3

  2,674

  Hampshire

  437

  19

  1,333

  37

  558

  2

  9

  5,360

  Hertfordshire

  139

  —

  523

  —

  487

  —

  4

  1,873

  Humberside

  208

  2

  860

  —

  154

  1

  2

  2,878

  Kent

  299

  9

  1,707

  6

  100

  1

  4

  4,366

  Lancashire

  200

  4

  822

  8

  80

  1

  1

  2,896

  Leicestershire

  136

  —

  473

  3

  49

  1

  3

  1,918

  Lincolnshire

  230

  —

  909

  —

  80

  —

  2

  3,470

  London, City of

  2

  —

  7

  —

  6

  —

  —

  39

  Merseyside

  128

  2

  387

  —

  34

  —

  6

  1,722

  Metropolitan Police District

  827

  20

  2,458

  24

  276

  —

  9

  9,248

  Norfolk

  320

  5

  967

  4

  453

  2

  5

  3,535

  Northamptonshire

  144

  —

  544

  —

  165

  —

  3

  2,244

  Northumbria

  311

  3

  267

  4

  152

  —

  4

  3,610

  North Yorkshire

  299

  1

  1,536

  1

  183

  3

  —

  5,500

  Nottinghamshire

  182

  —

  494

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1,979

  South Yorkshire

  184

  —

  385

  —

  54

  —

  1

  1,597

  Staffordshire

  232

  1

  719

  —

  276

  —

  2

  3,042

  Suffolk

  284

  —

  746

  2

  87

  2

  2

  3,567

  Surrey

  269

  —

  696

  3

  70

  —

  2

  2,622

  Sussex

  402

  —

  1,597

  —

  166

  —

  —

  5,524

  Thames Valley

  591

  10

  1,648

  17

  579

  4

  18

  6,425

  Warwickshire

  127

  2

  511

  —

  34

  —

  —

  1,663

  West Mercia

  492

  9

  1,707

  12

  257

  21

  5

  5,081

  West Midlands

  214

  —

  673

  1

  646

  —

  2

  2,448

  West Yorkshire

  295

  8

  914

  11

  5911

  31

  7

  3,212

  Wiltshire

  220

  —

  656

  —

  242

  —

  —

  2,589

  Dyfed-Powys

  252

  —

  951

  1

  152

  —

  1

  3,319

  Gwent

  71

  1

  229

  1

  1571

  11

  1

  822

  North Wales

  196

  1

  617

  1

  149

  —

  1

  2,353

  South Wales

  201

  2

  614

  —

  46

  —

  2

  2,280

  All forces

  10,894

  124

  37,287

  167

  8,0402

  602

  147

  138,419

  1 Total number of variations only available from these forces—see note 3.

  2 Includes estimates made centrally for two forces.

  Table 4: Shotgun certificates: applications for grant and renewal, granted and refused; revocations; certificates on issue at 31 December by police force area

  England and Wales 1993

  Numbers

  Applications

  Grant of new certificate

  Renewal of certificate

  Police force area

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Revocations

  Shotgun certificates on issue at 31 December

  Avon and Somerset

  812

  16

  7,965

  10

  26

  24,329

  Bedfordshire

  278

  9

  2,172

  —

  12

  7,305

  Cambridgeshire

  862

  18

  5,716

  13

  21

  16,674

  676 677

  Table 4: Shotgun certificates: applications for grant and renewal, granted and refused; revocations; certificates on issue at 31 December by police force area

  England and Wales 1993

  Numbers

  Applications

  Grant of new certificate

  Renewal of certificate

  Police force area

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Revocations

  Shotgun certificates on issue at 31 December

  Cheshire

  526

  6

  4,103

  4

  17

  14,193

  Cleveland

  109

  3

  788

  —

  2

  2,935

  Cumbria

  401

  9

  3,590

  —

  11

  11,864

  Derbyshire

  892

  3

  4,182

  2

  16

  13,380

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,169

  17

  12,733

  8

  34

  39,591

  Dorset

  443

  4

  3,749

  —

  13

  12,711

  Durham

  278

  5

  2,154

  —

  4

  7,076

  Essex

  1,241

  18

  7,152

  10

  30

  22,577

  Gloucestershire

  550

  5

  3,957

  1

  5

  12,891

  Greater Manchester

  450

  3

  3,065

  —

  7

  10,990

  Hampshire

  1,207

  19

  6,700

  17

  17

  23,532

  Hertfordshire

  782

  14

  2,881

  —

  10

  10,277

  Humberside

  363

  11

  3,433

  3

  12

  11,094

  Kent

  1,019

  32

  11,487

  5

  23

  23,870

  Lancashire

  660

  14

  4,454

  6

  22

  13,819

  Leicestershire

  474

  —

  3,686

  6

  3

  12,173

  Lincolnshire

  578

  4

  4,924

  2

  15

  17,382

  London, City of

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  35

  Merseyside

  243

  6

  1,595

  2

  8

  4,989

  Metropolitan Police District

  2,206

  34

  9,554

  15

  26

  35,621

  Norfolk

  1,096

  19

  7,586

  10

  37

  22,865

  Northamptonshire

  375

  1

  2,809

  —

  16

  10,125

  Northumbria

  608

  16

  953

  4

  11

  9,886

  North Yorkshire

  644

  —

  6,287

  —

  7

  20,159

  Nottinghamshire

  552

  9

  2,866

  2

  12

  12,306

  South Yorkshire

  527

  7

  2,603

  —

  13

  9,174

  Staffordshire

  721

  5

  6,348

  2

  8

  19,601

  Suffolk

  928

  1

  5,101

  2

  11

  19,166

  Surrey

  548

  4

  3,653

  2

  12

  12,459

  Sussex

  1,259

  2

  6,927

  —

  5

  23,924

  Thames Valley

  1,983

  29

  9,481

  25

  62

  32,576

  Warwickshire

  358

  4

  3,257

  —

  2

  10,127

  West Mercia

  1,514

  22

  1,595

  —

  72

  33,794

  West Midlands

  574

  17

  3,514

  —

  19

  12,548

  West Yorkshire

  741

  23

  3,935

  13

  18

  13,064

  Wiltshire

  458

  6

  3,324

  1

  3

  12,352

  Dyfed—Powys

  1,372

  1

  5,434

  —

  6

  22,450

  Gwent

  330

  4

  2,149

  6

  10

  6,985

  North Wales

  495

  21

  4,216

  5

  19

  14,969

  South Wales

  448

  10

  3,731

  6

  10

  13,228

  Total

  31,075

  451

  195,796

  189

  687

  681,066

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to exercise control over the sale and purchase of firearms in(a) the Metropolitan police area and (b) nationally. [20788]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. There are already extensive restrictions on the purchase and sale of firearms.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many gun and shotgun licences were issued in the Metropolitan Police area during the last 678
  available year to persons with previous criminal convictions of any kind. [20786]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Cheshire Police
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries into the present status of the case referred to in oral answers from the then Home Secretary, 13 May 1993,Official Report, column

  679
  924, insofar as it affects allegations of corrupt activities by officers in the Cheshire force. [20779]

  Mr. Maclean
  The report of the investigation has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will decide whether any criminal charges should be brought. Once a decision has been made, the chief constable of Cheshire and the Police Complaints Authority will consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against any officer.

  Deported Kenyan Citizens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of citizens of Kenya who have been deported from the United Kingdom in each of the past five years. [20742]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Citizens of Kenya removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process1

  Number

  1990

  15

  1991

  12

  1992

  10

  1993

  16

  1994

  219

  1 Including persons who departed voluntarily, but excluding illegal entrants removed—15 in 1994—and persons refused leave to enter at ports and removed.

  2 Provisional.

  Animal Rights Protestors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the funding, the establishment and the location of the headquarters and other subsidiary offices of the special police unit that has been set up in respect of animal rights protestors; and if he will make a statement. [20712]

  Mr. Maclean
  No special national police unit has been established in respect of animal rights protestors. The animal rights national index, which was established in 1986 and is based at New Scotland Yard, continues to support police forces throughout the United Kingdom by gathering, assessing and disseminating intelligence about animal rights extremist activity. In addition, the Association of Chief Police Officers recently decided that the commander of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch should have a co-ordinating role in respect of certain operations against animal rights extremists suspected of involvement in serious crime extending beyond individual force boundaries. This change does not involve the creation of additional posts.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases of child prostitution have been reported in Wales during the last year; and what are the figures for each of the previous four years; [20753]

  (2) how many cases of child prostitution have been reported during the last year; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [20728]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Paul Malone
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to discipline named police officers following the Police Complaints Authority report which he has received in respect of Mr. Paul Malone. [20780]

  Mr. Maclean
  The decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against any police officer is a matter for the chief officer concerned and the Police Complaints Authority. A decision will be taken in respect of those officers who were the subject of allegations made by Mr. Malone after the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced whether any officers are to face criminal proceedings.

  Complaints against Police
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what length of time should elapse after a chief constable has received a report from the Police Complaints Authority before action is taken. [20778]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the investigation of complaints is the responsibility of the chief officer of police, who is required to submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions where an investigation indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed. After the director has reached a decision on criminal proceedings or if the chief officer is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed, the chief officer must submit a memorandum to the Police Complaints Authority stating whether he has or intends to prefer disciplinary charges in respect of matter investigated.

  The joint statement of intent by the Police Complaints Authority, Crown Prosecution Service and Association of Chief Police Officers sets a target of 28 days of receipt of the investigation report in which the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with all but the more complex cases. The Police Complaints Authority's target is to complete consideration of the disciplinary aspects of the case within 28 days of the receipt of the chief officer's memorandum.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring takes place and by whom of immigration detainees held in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20354]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The welfare of immigration detainees held in prisons is monitored by the Prison Service, which reports any matter of concern to the immigration service.

  The immigration service regularly reviews the detention of all immigration detainees. The initial decision to detain is taken by an officer of at least chief immigration officer level and is reviewed within 24 hours by an immigration service inspector. Thereafter, detention is reviewed locally at least every seven days. After one month, the case is reviewed at headquarters, and thereafter on a monthly basis at an increasingly senior level, in consultation with the asylum division where there is an outstanding application for asylum.

  Immigration (EU Decisions)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all entitled resolutions,
  681
  conclusions, recommendations or other decisions relating to immigration and/or asylum matters which have been adopted by the European Council of the European Union either under the auspices of the intergovernmental process or on the formalisation of procedures under title VI of the treaty on European Union; and by what means members of the public may gain access to these matters. [20360]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The following measures relating to immigration and asylum have been adopted by the Council in accordance with the procedures established by the intergovernmental chapter—title VI—of the treaty on European Union:Resolution on limitations on admission of third-country nationals to the member states for employment;
  Resolution on the admission of third-country nationals to the territory of member states for study purposes;
  Resolution on limitations on admission of third country nationals to the territory of member states for the purpose of self-employment;
  Joint action on travel facilities for third country nationals—school pupils;
  Conclusions on the organisation and development of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration;
  Recommendation concerning a specimen draft bilateral readmission agreement between a member state of the European Union and a third country;
  Recommendation concerning a standard travel document for the removal of third country nationals.

  Proposals under title VI are made available for parliamentary scrutiny where they fall within the criteria for deposit in accordance with the Government's proposed scrutiny arrangements for title VI matters. Once they have been agreed by the Council, texts are made available to the House and can be provided to members of the public on request.

  Additionally, the following decisions were taken by Immigration Ministers under the ad hoc arrangements which existed before the structures created under title VI:

  Creation of a European forgery bulletin;

  Convention determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the EC, the "Dublin convention';

  Decision setting up CIREA, the centre for information, discussion and exchange on asylum;

  Conclusions concerning countries where there is generally no serious risk of persecution;

  Resolution on a harmonised approach to questions concerning host third countries;

  Resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum;

  Recommendation concerning member states' practices regarding removal;

  Recommendation concerning transit for the purposes of expulsion;

  Act setting up CIREFI, the centre for information, research and exchange on the crossing of boarders and immigration;

  Recommendation concerning checks on and expulsion of third country nationals residing or working without authorisation;

  Conclusions concerning greater flexibility in application of the provisions on transit for the purposes of expulsion; and

  Resolution on harmonisation of national policies on family reunification.

  These documents were normally placed in the Library after their adoption by Immigration Ministers.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances he would 682
  recommend to Parliament that the United Kingdom becomes a party to the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985; [20361]

  (2) whether the United Kingdom will join the Schengen agreement; and to what extent joining will be dependent on matters of immigration and asylum being taken out of the European Union. [20359]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have no intention of becoming a party to the Schengen agreement, which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of our system of frontier controls.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners disciplined for drugs possession or use during each of the last five years. [20387]

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

  Letter from B. Landers to Mr. Mike 0" Brien, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners disciplined for drugs possession or use during each of the last five years.
  The numbers in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales are as follows:

  Possession of controlled drugs: Offences proved at adjudication hearings, England and Wales, 1990–1994

  Year

  Number

  1990

  2,650

  1991

  2,798

  1992

  2,041

  1993

  1,797

  1994

  12,414

  1 Provisional.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) 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; [20188]

  (2) what measures the Department takes to asses the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20189]

  Mr. Howard
  Contributions to the annual report are provided by Home Office staff as part of their normal duties. The time and cost associated with this work are not separately recorded.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the policy of his Department to ensure that proper records are kept at all prisons in England and Wales on serious attempts to commit suicide; and if he will make a statement. [19950]
  683
  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. Rosemary Wool to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about our policy towards the keeping of proper records at prisons on serious attempts to commit suicide.
  In April 1994 the Prison Service introduced a revised strategy designed to enable a high quality of care to be given to prisoners who are identified as being at possible risk of self harm or suicide. Among the new procedures introduced then was a system for identifying those at risk of self harm by the use of a new Self Harm at Risk Form. The instruction issued to Prison Service establishments when the revised strategy was introduced states that such a form is to be raised following any incident of self harm or attempted suicide. It is made clear on the form that the details of any incident of actual self harm must be recorded in the section headed "daily supervision and support record'.
  There is no absolute rule about the length of time a Self Harm at Risk Form should remain open. Some crises pass very quickly, whereas other prisoners may require special monitoring and support over a long period. Once raised, a Self Harm at Risk Form may only be closed, by the unit manager after a case review, once the prisoner concerned appears to be coping satisfactorily. Closed forms are then filed in prisoners' personal records.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19377]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: In the first three months of 1995, one statutory instrument was partially revoked by Order. A total of 51 other statutory instruments were introduced but the majority of these were to carry forward amendments to existing instruments rather than to add to regulation or impose new burdens. For example, some 16 statutory instruments concerned voluntary schemes and rates of grant aid to farmers, notably orders amending rates of payment in designated environmentally sensitive areas. Six replaced earlier instruments or substituted more favourable regimes for industry. Five statutory instruments extended plant breeders' rights to cover additional plant varieties. Of the remaining measures, 13 implemented EU obligations; three updated frees and charges; and the remaining eight included measures to protect public health and animal welfare, to establish the Milk Development Council, and to make certain technical and procedural changes to existing legislation.

  EU Fisheries Legislation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will propose that EU fisheries legislation will provide for the possession of illegal mesh size nets to be illegal; and if he will make a statement. [19258]
  684
  Mr. Jack
  EU regulations provide for various minimum mesh sizes to be used in different circumstances. In practice, a fishing vessel will carry nets of all the mesh sizes likely to be needed for any trip. For example, in the English channel cod and sole must be targeted with trawl mesh sizes of not less than 80 mm, but it would be reasonable in season to take sprat on the same fishing trip and for this a net of not less than 16 mm is permitted. Enforcement activity focuses on the mesh sizes and the nets employed in relation to the catch retained on board.

  Within the EU, consideration has been given in the past to imposing a "single net rule' so that only one mesh size can be carried on a fishing vessel. However, so far it has been concluded that this would be too restrictive to be practical for general application.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime, (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19669]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Summary information on overtime from 1989–90 onwards for the agencies and the core Department is to be found at annex 6 of the Department's annual report, Cm 2803, a copy of which is to be found in the Library of the House.

  On sick absence, civil service occupational health service data show the total number of sick leave days taken to be:

  1992 (a) 57,693 days

  1993 (b) 66,268 days

  (a) core Department only (7,194 staff)

  (b) core Department and PSD, VMD and CSL agencies (7,889 staff)

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Responsibility for such matters within ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Pesticides Safety and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate have been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter, Chief Executive, Veterinary Medicines Directorate to Mr. David Shaw dated 20 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the amount and cost of paid overtime worked, and the amount and monetary value of days lost through sickness in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for each of the last three years, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  For overtime, information on the number of hours worked is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The amount paid however is as follows:

  1992/93: £858

  1993/94: £1,729

  1994/95: £2,430

  685
  For sickness absences, the total number of days lost was:

  Total available days

  Number of days lost through sickness

  Percentage lost of total

  1992–93

  22,597.5

  585

  2.59

  1993–94

  24,065

  865

  3.59

  1994–95

  24,801.4

  768.3

  3.10

  I regret that the monetary equivalent of these figures is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about overtime and days lost through sickness.
  Information on overtime in the form requested is not readily available but summary information can be found at Annex 6 of MAFF's Departmental Report 1995 (cm 2803) which has been placed in the Members' Library.
  On sickness, the total time in days lost at CVL in 1992/93 was 4,307 and in 1993/94 5,868 days. Figures for 1994/95 are not yet available. I am unable to give a monetary equivalent for the days lost as our records do not readily show this information. It could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) became a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) executive agency in April 1992. However I am unable to provide overtime statistics for the Agency in respect of 1992/93 as, throughout that financial year, figures were not recorded separately but formed part of the Departmental total.
  I am able to provide statistics for 1993/94 and 1994/95; however I should point out that in April 1994 the number of staff employed by the Agency increased from 450 to some 700 as a result of the merger of CSL with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen. This accounts for last year's rise in overtime above the previous year. Details are as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total hours:

  14,082

  18,248

  Sum paid:

  £101.98K

  £134.49K

  Finally you asked for details of the total time lost through sickness and its cost over the same three year period. I regret that I am unable to give this information because the figures for CSL form part of the Department's statistics and are not separately identified. An attempt to separate the figures would incur disproportionate costs.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question about overtime and sickness over the last three years.
  Such information is maintained by the core-Department but I understand that it is not readily available in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The figures which are available have been provided in the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am, however, able to provide information on the total amount paid in overtime since PSD was launched as an agency on 1 April 1993. This totalled £59,165 in 1993/94 and £46,021 in 1994/95. Figures prior to this date are not available.

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Mr. David Shaw, dated 19 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply, on behalf of ADAS, in answer to your Parliamentary Question Number 1059. In this you sought information about:
  686

  (a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made,

  b) the total paid in overtime,

  c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years.

  ADAS is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods and the Welsh Office which was formed in June 1992.

  My reply is as follows:

  a) Total hours of overtime. Information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  b) As above.

  c) On sick absence details are:

  1992: 13,097 days

  1993: 15,115 days

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 April 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about overtime and sickness in the Intervention Board as this matter is within my operational responsibility.
  The total hours of paid overtime and the total amount paid for overtime working in the Agency in each of the last three financial years, calculated on the basis of pay-roll data, were as follows:

  Paid overtime hours

  Overtime Payments £

  1992/93

  56,973

  337,401

  1993/94

  46,621

  261,291

  1994/951

  39,655

  251,477

  1 Excludes March payments.

  Sick absence rates are monitored in the Agency on a financial year basis to correspond with key performance measures and targets which are published in our Annual Report. The figures shown below, which have been calculated using our pay-roll data, represent the number of working days lost due to sickness and the associated salary costs. Figures for the last quarter of 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Sick absence (working days)

  Salary cost £

  1992–93

  8,507

  571,600

  1993–94

  9,816

  720,000

  1994–951

  6,917

  520,000

  1 April to December.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what the figures were for each year for which figures are available since 1990; [20204]

  (2) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20205]

  Mr. Jack
  Staff costs accounted for just over half of the estimated £100,000 cost of producing the 1995 departmental report. This was equivalent to about 400 staff days. Equivalent figures are not available for earlier years.
  687
  Costs are estimated as and when necessary but must in any case be contained within the Department's overall running cost provision.

  EC Tobacco Regime
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 162, what information he has received about the Commission's internal investigation into the suicide of an Italian official in the tobacco department; and what assessment he has made of this matter. [20460]

  Mr. Jack
  The official, a former head of the Commission's tobacco sector, was removed from his post in June 1990 and was subject to internal investigation by the Commission. These investigations ceased on his death in March 1993 and the Commission did not publish a report of its internal investigations. During the investigations, the official was not involved in any market management activities in the tobacco sector.

  In 1993, the European Court of Auditors produced a special report of its detailed examination of the operation of the tobacco regime in the period between 1987, when the last such report was produced, and 1992 that is the period prior to the December 1992 reform of the sector. Its report highlighted several areas where procedures needed to be improved. In 1992, the Council of Ministers agreed a number of substantial reforms especially designed to prevent fraud, such as elimination of intervention and export refunds, areas traditionally susceptible to fraud. The changes made met the major concerns identified in the European Court of Auditors report. Furthermore, the Commission is investigating cases of irregularities mentioned in that report and will take action in the form of disallowance of expenditure where controls have not been effective. In this respect, disallowance has already been applied to Greece and Italy to the value of £11 million and £5 million for the EAGGF accounts in 1990 and £23 million and £16 million for the 1991 EAGGF accounts.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the increases in fees levied by the Meat Hygiene Service [20818]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have received representations about the Meat Hygiene Service's charges from a number of organisations and individuals. The meat Hygiene Service is now consulting plant operators on proposed revised charges following the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 29 March,Official Report, columns 653–54, about the transitional relief we are minded to make available.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the reasons why the imposition of new meat hygiene regulations over the past two years has not brought about a reduction in cases of salmonella typhimurium DT 104C and what has been the increase in that period; [20822]
  688
  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of expenditure on the new Meat Hygiene Service on trends on the number of food poisoning cases over the course of the year. [20821]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of food poisoning cases has continued to rise over recent years but the number of cases of salmonella typhimurium DT 104C has fallen from 25 in 1993 to nine in 1994. The incidence of salmonella typhimurium DT 104 has risen in humans over the same period from 808 to 2,873 and I believe it is this to which my hon. Friend refers. Salmonella typhimurium DT 104 has been implicated in some food poisoning incidents associated with the consumption of meat and meat products but there is no strong evidence of a direct link.

  Thorough cooking will destroy most, if not all, pathogenic micro-organisms, but steps must be taken to limit the risk of cross-contamination, particularly from raw meat to other foods which may not be cooked before consumption.

  The slaughterhouse is an important area where steps can be taken to address the problem of cross-contamination between carcases, in order to reduce the incidence of pathogenic micro-organisms entering the distribution chain.

  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 have improved hygiene standards generally in slaughterhouses and other licensed fresh meat premises and the Meat Hygiene Service will build on this success. It is difficult, however, to make a direct quantitative link between the enforcement of these regulations and the level of occurrence of any food poisoning, including by salmonella typhimurium DT 104.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of Teschen disease occurred in each year since 1975. [21099]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of Teschen disease has ever been reported in England.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of African swine fever there has been each year since 1985. [21067]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of African swine fever has ever been reported in England.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of vesicular stomatitis occurred in each year since 1985. [21136]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of vesicular stomatitis has ever been reported in England.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets set for the chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation agency for the financial year 1995–96. [21903]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation agency has been set the following key targets for 1995–96.
  689

  1. To deliver a responsive repair service to match the needs of the customer in peace and for operations to the agreed timeliness, quantity and quality criteria and within the allocated resources.

  2. To operate an automated full cost, accruals accounting system by 31 March 1996.

  3. To develop a comprehensive output based system to measure customer satisfaction.

  4. To reduce by 4 per cent. the 1995–96 ratio of labour costs to hours of production by 31 March 1996.

  5. To complete the transfer of light armoured fighting vehicle repair activities from ABRO Old Dalby to ABRO Bovington by 31 March 1996.

  6. To invite tenders for the Land Command Support Market Test by 31 December 1995.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the unused floor space within the ABRO facilities at Bovington; and what plans he has to increase the work load for ABRO or to utilise the floorspace in another way. [21260]

  Mr. Freeman
  The extent of unused floor space at ABRO Bovington, which varies from period to period because of the fluctuating nature of the business, is not readily available. Spare workshop capacity exists throughout the Army Base Repair Organisation and plans to rationalise workshop capacity, through the closure of the ABRO Old Dalby workshop and the transfer of its work either to other ABRO or MOD facilities or to industry, are being implemented.

  Preparations are under way for the transfer of a major armoured vehicle repair programme from Old Dalby to Bovington. In addition, a newly identified heavy "B" vehicle repair programme is about to be placed with the workshop, starting in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are currently employed by his Department in the ABRO, Bovington and Lulworth facilities, breaking the figures down to indicate the type of personnel and whether the people live(a) on and (b) off the base. [21285]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently 422 personnel employed at ABRO Bovington; of these, 29 are based at the Lulworth detachment and hence 393 are located at Bovington. None of the staff lives on the base itself. I will send the hon. Member a detailed breakdown and will arrange for a copy of this to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Engineer Resources
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Army's engineer resources. [21902]

  Mr. Soames
  The engineer resources, employing some 275 civilian staff is currently located at Long Marston, Warwickshire. Following an examination of the business structure of the engineer resources and investment appraisal, it has been concluded that significant savings could be made from collocating with the military work force at Chilwell.

  I have therefore decided to accept, as the basis for consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties, the recommendation that staff at Long Marston be collocated with the military work force on a single site at Chilwell. Final decisions will be taken only in the light of representations made during the consultation period.
  690
  A copy of the consultative document is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current valuation of the official service residence in Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America. [21904]

  Mr. Soames
  The paper on official service residences referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Fareham (Sir Peter Lloyd) on 10 February, Official Report, columns 465–67, erroneously stated the value to the US$5 million. The figure should, however, have read US$500,000. A more recent valuation by an independent firm in Norfolk, Virginia has valued the property at US$650,000.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the major items of repair to Haymes Garth and the estimated and actual costs of each item.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Thursday 20 April 1995]: Since January 1993, the total cost of essential external repairs to Haymes Garth has been £80,000. Items of repair undertaken include repairs to the roof, repairs and replacement of doors and windows and essential repairs to the driveway.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report; [20201]

  (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what the figures were for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20200]

  Mr. Soames
  Most of the information in the departmental report is gathered and compiled by staff, as part of their normal duties, for use not only in the report but in other Government publications and internal management plans. It is therefore not possible to separate the marginal staff effort and costs relating solely to the departmental report.

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reviews of the effectiveness of United Kingdom defence attaches have been undertaken; and when the results will be published. [19957]

  Mr. Soames
  The most recent review of attaches was the Goddard study, which considered the tasks of the corps, its long-term role and deployment and its management and operation, and reported in July 1993.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of whether the United Kingdom deploys fewer nuclear warheads than any of the other four acknowledged nuclear weapon sates. [20568]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom deploys the minimum nuclear deterrent necessary for our security. The size of our nuclear stockpile is not determined by
  691
  comparison with the number of nuclear warheads held by the other nuclear weapon states.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy only nuclear weapons on the three Trident submarines in the operational cycle. [20570]

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to the Trident missile system, each submarine has a tactical weapon system, including Spearfish torpedoes, for self-defence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom already has sufficient fissile material suitable for weapons purposes to meet any future contingencies which might require the deployment of additional nuclear warheads. [20565]

  Mr. Soames
  We have sufficient fissile material for explosive purposes to meet our foreseeable operational needs.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government's policy to cease the production of fissile material for explosive purposes will prevent the recycling of fissile material arising from the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear weapons for use in Trident warheads. [20564]

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Recycling allows us to keep our stockpile of fissile material at the minimum necessary to meet our operational requirements.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the production of Trident warheads has been completed. [20566]

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Nuclear Emergency Unit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current establishment and current funding of the nuclear emergency unit based at his Department's main building, Whitehall; and what were the figures for the previous four years. [20722]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs for the eight full-time staff currently in the MOD headquarters nuclear accident response organisation are expected to be £300,000 for financial year 1995–96. In the previous four years there were seven full-time staff; costs for 1991–92 are not available but in the intervening years they were as follows:

  1992–93: £230,000

  1993–94: £247,000

  1994–95: £262,000

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current aims and objectives of the nuclear emergency unit. [20723]

  Mr. Soames
  The aims and objectives of the MOD nuclear accident response organisation are to ensure that, in conjunction with the appropriate civil agencies, there would be an effective response to safeguard the general public and MOD personnel in the unlikely event of an accident or other emergency involving defence nuclear material.

  Regimental Vehicles
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are available to the 1st and 2nd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments for repair and storage of the regiments' vehicles; if he will list the 692
  vehicles that are attached to the regiments and estimate the floor area taken up in covered accommodation for these vehicles; and what estimate he has made of the relative size of the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. [21261]

  Mr. Soames
  The facilities available for the repair and storage of the 1st and 2nd Regiments' vehicles are as follows:

  Windsor: 2,970m2

  Hohne: 2,240m2

  The vehicles attached to each regiment are:

  Tracked

  5 Samaritan

  16 Striker

  48 Scimitar

  16 Sultan

  30 Spartan

  5 Samson

  Wheeled

  1 Reconnaissance vehicle

  2 TUM GS

  14 Track 8 ton

  1 Staff car

  20 TUM FFR

  18 Truck 4 ton

  1 Van 1 ton

  1 Car utility

  Plant

  2 JCB

  The current floor area taken up in covered accommodation for these vehicles is:

  Windsor: 3,700m2

  Hohne: 6,720m2

  The estimated size of the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment is 527 personnel and the same number of vehicles as given above.

  Naval Gunfire Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safety precautions are planned to be taken by his Department during naval gunnery support training when this is undertaken off Dodman Point in Cornwall. [21265]

  Mr. Soames
  Safety is the paramount consideration in conducting naval gunfire support training. Safety procedures involve a number of distinct and independent checks which must all be completed before the commanding officer can give approval to fire. Moreover, the area will be monitored visually by military observers, and by a range safety craft. These measures are designed to ensure the safety of all marine users in the area. It is a feature of NGS training that the Royal Navy vessel works around all other marine activity, and that there is no question of any exclusion areas, whether for vessels or for people.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Army personnel and civilian work force are involved in naval gunnery support exercises at Lulworth ranges; where these personnel are normally based; and what the job implications are for removing these exercises from Lulworth. [21264]

  Mr. Soames
  There are not civilian personnel at Lulworth currently in support of naval gunfire support
  693
  training. Three shore-based Army observers support NGS training at Lulworth and are drawn from 148 Battery Royal Artillery, based at Poole. This battery will continue to support NGS training when it moves to the area off Dodman Point. There are therefore no job implications for personnel at Lulworth.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Lulworth ranges for naval gunnery support training; if the gunfire has always been directed into the sea; and what incidents have been recorded of the projectiles landing onshore when they were aimed at the sea. [21266]

  Mr. Soames
  Naval gunfire support training has been carried out at Lulworth without incident for more than 20 years. The firing position is in Weymouth bay, firing parallel with the coast at a target sited two miles out to sea from St. Albans head.

  Regimental Staff
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff there are in the 1st and 2nd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments; how many are(a) MOD and (b) civilian staff; where they are currently located; and how many staff live (i) on and (ii) off the bases. [21262]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Military

  MOD civilian

  Civilian contractors

  Household Cavalry Regiment based at Windsor:

  527

  14

  46

  Light Dragoons based in Hohne, Germany:

  527

  1

  37

  At Windsor, 224 staff live on the base, 363 live off and at Hohne 246 staff live on the base, 319 live off.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the floor area to be occupied by each employee at the Abbey Wood procurement executive headquarters; what is the equivalent figure currently available to staff working in South Dorset; and what was the original area per employee that had been planned for Abbey Wood at the outset of the project. [21242]

  Mr. Freeman
  Within the Abbey Wood headquarters office buildings, which is mainly open plan, the average floor area to be occupied by each employee will be 9.64 sq m, which includes an allowance for storage, IT equipment and local meeting space. For the largely cellular office accommodation occupied by MOD staff in Portland, south Dorset, the average floor area occupied by each employee is some 13.25 sq m. The original average floor area planned at the outset of the Abbey Wood project was 10.52 sq m per employee. More taut accommodation standards are now being implemented.

  Royal Armoured Corps
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the facilities and accommodation currently vacant or under-used at the Royal Armoured 694
  Corps centre at Bovington and Lulworth; and what facilities and accommodation will become vacant if the RAC training becomes civilianised. [21259]

  Mr. Soames
  None of the facilities at the Royal Armoured Corps centre are under-utilised, although there are at present two soldiers' accommodation blocks vacant and 47 married quarters unoccupied. No facilities will become vacant if the RAC training becomes civilianised. A maximum of three accommodation blocks will remain under-utilised.

  Naval Gunfire Support
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safety arrangements are made at Lulworth ranges when naval gunnery support exercises are being carried out; if the public are allowed to be present on the ranges; if boats, ships and swimmers are excluded from the maritime restriction zone; and if safety boats are in attendance. [21263]

  Mr. Soames
  Safety is the paramount consideration in conducting naval gunfire support training. Safety procedures involve a number of distinct and independent checks which must all be completed before the commanding officer can give approval to fire. The area is also monitored visually by military observers, and by a range safety craft. These measures are designed to ensure the safety of all marine users in the area. It is a feature of NGS training that the Royal Navy vessel works around all other marine activity, and thus there is no question of any exclusion zones, whether for vessels or for people. Similarly, NGS training at Lulworth does not affect public access to the landward coastline and environs of Lulworth at all. Only when the range is active for Army tank firings is access on land or to sea controlled.

  Third Reconnaissance Battalion
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from hon. Members as to the location of the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion in a location other than Bovington; if he will name those hon. Members who have contacted his Department; and if he will publish the correspondence. [21267]

  Mr. Soames
  I have had a number of representations from hon. Members on this subject but it is not my Department's practice to publish details of such correspondence.

  Defence Postings (Weymouth and Portland)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of defence posts which have already been lost in Weymouth and Portland over the past three years and the number of posts he expects to be lost rather than transferred up until the year 2000. [21243]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of service and civilian posts in my Department and its agencies in the Weymouth and Portland area has reduced by over 400 in the last three years. Between now and the year 2000 the transfer of functions to new locations means that some 3,000 further posts will move from the area. The majority of these will transfer to the new locations but it is not possible to estimate accurately how many will be saved by efficiency measures.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have made a bid to purchase the Portland naval base. [21238]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's policy to divulge details of bidders for redundant military sites.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has accepted the highest bid for the Portland naval base. [21239]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has accepted the bid which offers the best long-term solution for the area and reuse of the naval base.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base; [21166]

  Mr. Soames
  The Dartmoor steering group and working party was established on a statutory basis under Command 6837.

  The Independent Board of Visitors was established in accordance with the Naval Detention Quarters Rules 1973 for RN detention quarters, and the Imprisonment and Detention Rules Army 1979 for military corrective training centres.

  There is no formal requirement for any of MOD's advisory non-departmental public bodies to publish their advice to Government, publish an annual report or lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  The annual reports of the Dartmoor steering group and working party and the Review Board for Government Contracts have, however, been placed in the Library of the House on previous occasions.

  Alistair Green v. Ministry of Defence
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total costs to public funds incurred in the case of Alistair Green v. Ministry of Defence; and what costs were incurred after the Ministry paid £32,000 into court. [19899]

  Mr. Freeman
  In this case the legal costs to my Department notified to date are in excess of £200,000, mostly incurred after a payment had been made into court. Our practice is to settle compensation claims by agreement whenever this can appropriately be done, but it is necessary to resist those claims which are regarded as unfounded.

  Army Vehicles
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, column 1153, which companies are participating in the evaluation trial for replacement of the Army's Land Rover 1 tonne and three-quarter tonne ambulances. [20207]

  Mr. Freeman
  Three companies—Land Rover Ltd., Iveco Ford Truck Ltd. and Steyr Daimler Puch—are currently being evaluated in this competition.

  Fraud
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in reclaiming moneys from the companies Borletti, Junghans and Raufass; and what is the up to date position regarding civil proceedings against Gordon Foxley, members of his family circle and the companies involved in the payment of secret commissions. [19954]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Lady to the Comptroller and Auditor General's recently published report, "The Risk of Fraud in Defence Procurement', HC 258 Session 1994–95, 10 March 1995. Chapter 5 contains an extensive description of my Department's response to the Foxley case, including civil proceedings.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current state of the construction industry in Northern Ireland. [19615]

  Mr. Moss
  The construction industry in Northern Ireland has in terms of its growth in the value of output since 1990 increased by 7.5 percentage points.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to commence reorganisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [19617]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government published their proposals for changes in policing structure in 1994. Following the ceasefires, the RUC and the Police Authority are now carrying out consultations into the future of policing in Northern Ireland.

  Peace Support Programme
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with European commissioners to discuss the distribution of resources under the special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [19622]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has discussed the special support programme for peace and reconciliation with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, and the Commissioner of Regional Policy, Mrs. Monika Wolf-Mathies, during their recent visits to Northern Ireland. Officials have also given views on the funding priorities of the programme.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with local community organisations in Northern Ireland to discuss the distribution of resources under the European special support programme for peace and reconciliation. [19632]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has discussed the special programme with representatives of the voluntary sector. In addition, in drawing up proposals for an operational programme, officials are currently involved in an extensive consultation process with interested bodies, including local community
  697
  organisations. These discussions covered a wide range of issues, including the distribution of resources.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Department organised the conference in Newcastle on 29 March about the European Union fund for Peace and Reconciliation; and how many persons were invited in their capacity as elected members of the district councils. [19935]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The conference in Newcastle on 29 March 1995 on the European Union initiative for peace and reconciliation was organised by the Department of Finance and Personnel. A total of 248 invitations were issued, 52 of which were sent to the district councils. It was a matter for individual councils to decide whether elected members or officials would attend.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of staff of the Labour Relations Agency have been given(a) paid time off work and (b) unpaid time off work to attend the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin. [19904]

  Mr. Ancram
  One Labour Relations Agency staff member has been given both paid and unpaid time off work, in accordance with the rules governing political activities in the agency's staff handbook, to attend the forum for peace and reconciliation.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland about(a) the investment of that part of the EU funding for peace and reconciliation for cross-border projects and (b) the investment of the remaining part of this funding for projects entirely within Northern Ireland. [19906]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic of Ireland will, as laid down in the European Commission's guidelines, be jointly submitted by both member states. This will require consultation and liaison, particularly in respect of the cross-border elements of the programme. The programme will also reflect the outcome of extensive public consultations in Northern Ireland and in the eligible area of the Republic of Ireland.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to tackle pockets of extremely high unemployment in Northern Ireland. [19625]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to our increasingly successful efforts to attract inward investment, grow tourism, encourage exports and explore innovation by our current companies as well as the training programmes and other job creation measures which are available.

  In addition, we are piloting 1,000 places under the community work programme for long-term unemployed in three of the highest areas of unemployment.

  Framework Document
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he had received following the publication of the framework document. [19626]
  698
  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland Office has received 238 letters of varied content from members of the public and from Members of Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met a delegation from the grand orange lodge, and answered questions from audiences at a number of speaking engagements in Northern Ireland.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules and regulations he plans to repeal in the next four weeks. [19627]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the NI Departments and the Northern Ireland Office a total of 11 rules and regulations will be repealed during the next four weeks.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what value his Department places on the work of trade unions in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [19628]

  Mr. Ancram
  Trade unions in Northern Ireland make, and have made, a valuable contribution to Northern Ireland's excellent industrial relations record, in combating sectarianism in the work place and in promoting peace and reconciliation. I also commend the work undertaken by the trade unions in encouraging and supporting equality of employment opportunities.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to open face to face discussions with Sinn Fein. [19629]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) earlier today.

  Irish-medium Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvement he plans in the inspection of Irish-medium schools. [19630]

  Mr. Ancram
  Inspection of schools of all types in Northern Ireland follows the principles and procedures set out in two booklets published by the Department of Education, "The Inspection Process in Schools" and "Evaluating Schools'. Copies of these are available in the Library. The effectiveness of inspection is evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received on behalf of Private Lee Clegg. [19631]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Private Clegg's case has generated considerable interest, including over 4,000 letters and a number of petitions.

  Community and Youth Organisations
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase funding for community and youth organisations in Northern Ireland. [19633]
  699
  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995–96, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland will increase its funding to the Youth Council for Northern Ireland by 3.2 per cent. to £2.05 million. It will be a matter for each education and library board to determine the funds to be allocated to youth services from within their block grant allocations. The Department of Health and Social Services will increase the grant to District councils for their support to independent advice centres by 45 per cent. to £377,000 and make an additional £275,000 per annum available for the development of volunteer bureaux. The Department of the Environment has made an additional £5 million available for the Community regeneration and improvement special programme for the three years to 1997–98, while the Making Belfast Work initiative will provide £50 million over the next two years. Community groups will also benefit from funding available between 1994 and 1999 under various sub-programmes in the single programming document.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new houses for rent at low cost were built in Northern Ireland in the years 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [19634]

  Mr. Moss
  The numbers of new public and voluntary sector houses which were completed in Northern Ireland during 1993–94 and 1994–95 were as follows:

  Northern Ireland housing executive (Public sector)

  Registered housing associations (Voluntary sector)

  Total

  1993–94

  888

  781

  1,669

  1994–95

  878

  1,026

  1,904

  Family Carers
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy towards family carers. [19635]

  Mr. Moss
  The policy for family carers is set out in "People First' which was published by the Department of Health and Social Services in 1990. It is that family carers should be encouraged and assisted to continue to provide care through the timely provision of support tailored to their needs.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the eradication of premature deaths caused by coronary heart disease in Northern Ireland; and what was the death rate for people aged under 65 years in(a) 1985 and (b) 1992. [19636]

  Mr. Moss
  There has been a marked reduction in premature deaths due to coronary heart disease in recent years. The rates are as follows:
  700

  Year

  Number (under age 65)

  Crude death rate per 100,000 estimated population aged under 65 years

  1985

  1,056

  77

  1992

  770

  55

  Irish Government (Talks)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last held discussions with his counterparts in the Irish Government on the peace process. [19614]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I discussed elements of the peace process with Mr. Bruton on 12 April.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the water industry in Northern Ireland. [19621]

  Mr. Moss
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) announced on 29 June 1994,Official Report, columns 550–51, the Government intend to establish the Department of the Environment's Water Executive as a next steps agency by April 1996.

  Harbours
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the harbours at Church bay and Ballycastle. [19623]

  Mr. Moss
  On 1 March I announced funding of £4.5 million over three years for improvements to the harbours at Church Bay, Rathlin Island and Ballycastle. This will allow the introduction of a new roll-on roll-off ferry service and demonstrates the Government's commitment to the people of Rathlin.

  Arms and Explosives
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current situation relating to the decommissioning of arms and explosives by all terrorist groups. [19624]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

  Fisheries
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further swaps the Government are considering with Norway to benefit the Irish sea. [19925]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government are adopting to protect the United Kingdom's fishing fleet, following the disappearance of the Irish box from 1 January 1996. [19923]

  Mr. Ancram
  Under the new arrangements for western waters, our industry's ability to take their quotas is fully protected. We secured a key enforcement role for coastal states under the new arrangements agreed in December 1994. We will be taking full advantage of this key enforcement role to monitor fishing activity in our waters,
  701
  including those by vessels from other member states, to ensure the new rules are properly policed. The Government have already announced that it will provide the necessary resources to do so.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government is proposing to compensate those areas of the United Kingdom that are discriminated against by the Hague preference. [19924]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have made a commitment to seek to reduce through quota swaps any disadvantage to Northern Ireland and Wales resulting from the application of the Hague preference in the Irish sea. In honouring this commitment, quota swaps have already been agreed this year with the Republic of Ireland and with the Netherlands for additional quotas of Irish sea cod and whiting which are affected by the Hague preference arrangements and which are two of the most important stocks to Northern Ireland fishermen.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what indications Her Majesty's Government have received from the Republic of Ireland that it is willing to allocate some of the fish quotas that it does not catch to Northern Ireland fishermen. [19926]

  Mr. Ancram
  A quota swap has already been agreed with the Republic of Ireland for additional quotas of Irish sea cod and whiting which are important stocks for Northern Ireland fishermen.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [20183]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, information on costs is not readily collectable, as much of the material obtained for the report is also required for other purposes, such as strategic planning. However, the estimated cost borne by the Department of Finance and Personnel, in editing and composing the 1995 Northern Ireland departmental report, from material submitted by other Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office was some £25,000. This covers some 13 man months of staff time by the editor and his team, along with some 3.5 weeks of staff time by typists in composing the report. Estimated editing and composing costs for previous years are broadly comparable in real terms.

  EU Structural Funds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) management committee and (b) other bodies have been formed in drawing up a strategy to manage the structural funds allocated in Northern Ireland from the Economic Union; who are the members of the committee; who appointed them; and which members have sea fisheries experience. [19921]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A single programme monitoring committee has been established to oversee the implementation of the single programme under which around £956 million of European structural funds assistance will be available to Northern Ireland for the period 1994–99. Ten informal working committees have 702
  also been established to support and advise the SPMC in its role. In addition to Government and European Commission representation on the Committees, there are also a number of outside members who are drawn from relevant key sectors.

  In accordance with the structural funds regulations, outside members have been appointed by the member state. This was done following consultation with Departments and on the basis of their background and wide experience. Mr. Ledwidge, a member of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, NI Seafood Ltd. and former chairman of the NI Fishery Harbour Authority has been appointed to the fisheries sub-programme working committee.

  As required by the Structural Funds Regulations, a separate monitoring committee will be established for each of the nine community initiative programmes benefiting Northern Ireland. To date five of these programmes have been approved by the European Commission. A monitoring committee has been formally established for one of them, the employment community initiative programme, which was the first one agreed.

  The monitoring arrangements for the special initiative for peace and reconciliation will be agreed with the European Commission as part of the negotiation of the programme.

  A list of the outside membership for the committees which have been established to date is as follows:

  Northern Ireland single programme monitoring committee

  Mr. S. Curran (Industry sector)

  Professor R. W. Ewan (Training sector)

  Ms A. Kilmurray (Voluntary sector)

  Mr. D. Mitchell (District Councils)

  Mr. N. Shaw (Agriculture sector)

  Economic development sub-programme

  Mr. B. Johnston—First Trust Bank

  Professor I. Allen—NI Neuropathology Service, Royal Victoria Hospital

  Mr. P. Gorecki—NI Economic Council

  Mr. J. McKinney—Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Tourism sub-programme

  Mr. D. Fallows—Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Mr. D. Broderick—Tourism and Hospitality Training Council (NI)

  Ms P. Morris—Glenavon House Hotel

  Mr. A. Goan—Belleek Pottery Ltd

  Mr. I. McQuiston—National Trust

  Physical and social environment sub-programme

  Dr. D. Stephens—Irish Council of Churches

  Mrs. A. McGinley—Fermanagh District Council

  Ms M. McWilliams—University of Ulster

  Mr. S. McAleavey—NI Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. J. Redpath—Community Leader

  Investment in the development of people sub-programme

  Ms S. McKee—Cantrell and Cochrane Ltd

  Ms A. Kilmurray—NI Voluntary Trust

  Mr. L. Hasson—Austin and Co Ltd, Londonderry

  Mr. N. McBride—Job Link Training Scheme, Coleraine

  Transportation sub-programme

  Mrs. M. Bell—NI General Consumer Council

  Mr. J. Irvine—NI Transport Holding Company

  Energy sub-programme

  Mr. W. Napier—Tyrone Brick Ltd

  Mr. M. Smyth—University of Ulster

  Ms M. McCloskey—Neighbourhood Energy Action

  703
  Agriculture and rural development sub-programme

  i Agriculture

  A representative—Ulster Farmers' Union

  A representative—NI Agricultural Producers Association

  ii Rural Development

  Mr. J. Armstrong—Rural Development Council

  Professor F. Gordon—Agricultural Research Institute for NI

  Fisheries sub-programme

  Mr. F. Ledwidge—NI Seafoods Ltd.

  Environmental Services and Protection Sub-programme

  Professor A. Long—Queen's University, Belfast

  Dr. C. Carter—University of Ulster

  Employment Community Initiative Programme

  Mrs. J. Smyth—Equal Opportunities Commission

  Ms M. Wilson—Disability Action

  Ms S. McKee—Cantrell and Cockrane Ltd

  Ms A. Kilmurray—NI Voluntary Trust

  Mr. L. Hasson—Austin and Co Ltd, Londonderry

  Mr. N. McBride—Job Link Training Scheme, Coleraine

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on modern apprenticeships in Northern Ireland. [20206]

  Mr. Ancram
  Consultation between the Training and Employment Agency, industry and relevant training organisations has shown widespread support for the introduction in Northern Ireland of arrangements similar to modern apprenticeships. Accordingly, the agency has been working with the industry representatives to agree Northern Ireland modern apprenticeship frameworks for introduction from September 1995, the same implementation date as for modern apprenticeships in Great Britain. It is planned to have agreed frameworks for 20 skill areas by that time, and subsequently to expand the approach progressively to other sectors. The Northern Ireland arrangements have been designed to meet Northern Ireland circumstances. Funding support for Northern Ireland modern apprenticeship training will be provided under the recently introduced jobskills programme.

  Game Shooting
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist for game shooting at Seskinore forest, Omagh; what proposals he has for future arrangements for game shooting at this forest; if he will make a statement. [19905]

  Mr. Ancram
  Pheasant shooting will take place at Seskinore forest on 11 days during the 1995–96 season. Shooting will be let by tender. Following closure of the Department's game farm at Seskinore, which will take place during 1995, no further shooting will be available at Seskinore after 31 January 1996. Future management of the forest has yet to be finally decided and will be subject to the conclusions drawn from the prior options study of all Forest Service activities which is currently under way.

  Agency Job Losses
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and location 704
  of Compensation Agency, Driver and Vehicle Licensing, Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, Rate Collection Agency, Social Security Agency, Training and Employment Agency and Valuation and Lands 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. [19967]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [20039]

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

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20184]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Where possible, the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the report are assessed on the basis of the previous year's experience. However, as much of the material collected is also required for other purposes, assessments of costs relating to the report alone is often not possible.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been on hospital waiting lists in Northern Ireland for more than 12 months. [19963]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of patients waiting for admission to Northern Ireland health service hospitals for more than 12 months at the end of December 1994:

  Number waiting for ordinary admission: 2,402

  Number waiting for day case treatment: 925

  Blood Transfusion Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 1995,Official Report, column 19, on what dates the contract for the Blood Transfusion Agency new building at the Belfast City hospital was signed; and how many weeks were allowed for the completion of the building in accordance with the terms of the original contract document. [20168]

  Mr. Moss
  The contract for the construction of the headquarters of the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Agency at the Belfast City hospital site was signed on 18 October 1994. Article 5, paragraph 5.1, page 8, of the contract states:
  705
  "The Employer and Contractor shall be deemed to have entered into this agreement on 7th March 1993".

  The time allowed in the original contract document for the completion of the works was 91.5 weeks.

  Race Relations Legislation
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to introduce race relations legislation to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [20320]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Following an earlier process of public consultation, I have concluded that legislation on the general lines of the Race Relations Act 1976 should be introduced in Northern Ireland. It is my intention to bring this legislation forward by means of an Order in Council as soon as possible.

  Skilled Workers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's latest estimate of the need for and availability of skilled workers in Northern Ireland. [19961]

  Mr. Ancram
  The demand for skilled labour in Northern Ireland is increasing and in general there is a sufficient supply of suitable workers. However, the situation differs in different sectors and localities. Demand is particularly noticeable, for example, in the tourism sector. Action is being taken through the Training and Employment Agency, working with sector representative.bodies, to identify needs and to ensure that they can be met.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has plans to publish details of the targets of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [21803]

  Mr. Moss
  The Child Support Agency will publish its 1995–96 business plan today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The targets that I have set for the Child Support Agency for 1995–96 are as follows:
  —£6.15 million of maintenance to be collected, or arranged for direct payment from absent parents to parents with care in 1995–96.
  —90 per cent. of payments made to parents with care to be made in 10 working days of receipt from an absent parent.
  —To achieve a steady improvement in accuracy, so that in at least 75 per cent. of cases checked during March 1996 the cash value will be for the correct amount.
  —Where a client is dissatisfied with a Child Support Officer's decision and requests a review, 50 per cent. to be cleared within 13 weeks; 80 per cent. to be cleared within 26 weeks; and no more than 15 per cent. to be older than six months as at 31 March 1996.
  —60 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and as at 31 March 1996 no maintenance applications received by the agency to be over 12 months old.
  —To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver its business plan within the gross budget allocation.

  As a new and evolving agency the 1994–95 targets did not cover the whole range of the agency's business and in the light of experience did not prove to be appropriate drivers of the business. The new targets take account of this and cover a wider range of activities. They will require the agency to improve performance in a number
  706
  of areas. In particular, this year's targets include measures of accuracy and of the time taken to provide services. This underlines the agency's focus on quality and client service in 1995–96.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Arms Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent responses have been made by those nations opposing indefinite unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to the proposals he set out on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the non-proliferation treaty conference in New York on 18 April. [20808]

  Mr. David Davis
  The steps that we have taken to address the concerns of the non-aligned movement have helped to develop growing support for the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There have been statements of support for the treaty's indefinite extension by South Africa, Singapore, the Philippines, Bolivia, Uzbekistan and many others.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of his announcement that the United Kingdom is to cease production of fissile materials for explosive purposes at the Chapelcross and Calder Hall reactors; and if he will make a statement. [21014]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 26 April 1995]: The conference on disarmament in Geneva has agreed the mandate for the ad hoc committee which will negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. In order to show our commitment to that process my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced that the UK has ceased production of fissile material. We anticipate that negotiations will begin in June.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decision has been reached by Her Majesty's Government with respect to whether Hong Kong citizens holding a Hong Kong special administrative region passport after 1997 will need a visa to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [21146]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have not yet taken any decision on visa requirements for Hong Kong special administrative region passport holders wishing to visit the United Kingdom after 1 July 1997. In taking such a decision, we will consider a number of factors, including eligibility for the passport and arrangements for its issue and security. We continue through the Joint Liaison Group to press the Chinese for early progress on these questions, but until details have been finalised and we have evidence that satisfactory procedures are in place we shall not be able to take a decision on visa requirements for HKSAR passport holders.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria Her Majesty's Government will apply to elections in Kashmir in respect of their being free and fair; and if he will make a statement. [21153]

  Mr. Baldry
  We shall be considering with our European partners how best to assess the forthcoming elections in Kashmir.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to United Nations resolutions concerning Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [21154]

  Mr. Baldry
  Britain supported, and both India and Pakistan agreed, the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949 which provided the basis for a possible solution to the Kashmir dispute, but neither side fully implemented those resolutions, which have to some extent been overtaken by events. The 1972 Simla agreement represents the most recent formal agreement between India and Pakistan on the handling of the dispute. It envisages settlement through bilateral negotiations or other peaceful means mutually agreed between them. We believe this to be the best way forward.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those bodies with a statutory base. [21162]
  708
  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no statutory requirement for the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the FCO, including the Overseas Development Administration, to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report or (c) lay an annual report before Parliament.

  The following bodies have a statutory base:

  The Indian Family Pension Funds Body of Commissioners

  The Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board.

  US (Visas)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reasons have been given by the United States Government for not applying reciprocity in respect of visa requirements on British citizens travelling to the United States of America; what recent discussions there have been with the US authorities on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [21241]

  Mr. Baldry
  There has for some years been reciprocity for visitors, in that neither country requires visas of the other's citizens who wish to make short-term visits. Similarly, both countries require visas of people wishing to work or settle in the other.

  Lockerbie
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps he has taken to negotiate with the Libyan Government in respect of the Lockerbie disaster. [21059]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had a number of meetings with Libyan officials. The Libyan Government are fully aware of the requirements which have been placed on Libya by the United Nations Security Council.

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

Pension Addition for Over-80s
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to up-rate the 25 pence weekly old-age pension addition for over-80s introduced in 1971 and now, according to the CSO Retail Prices Index 1994, worth 2 pence.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have no plans to up-rate the 25 pence age addition which is paid to all pensioners from the age of 80. We believe that help should be targeted at pensioners on low incomes, and we have concentrated resources on the higher pensioner premium in income support for those aged 80 or over.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, perhaps I may declare a personal interest because recently I received a letter from the department concerned which gave me the splendid news that on my impending 80th birthday, my retirement pension would increase by 2 pence, which is taxable. In fact, it actually said that it would increase by 25 pence but, having done some research, I found that the value of 25 pence in 1971 is now 2 pence.
Does the noble Lord recall a Written Question which I asked on 13th March? He replied:
"If the age addition to retirement pension had been increased in line with prices … since its introduction in September 1971 it would currently be payable at a weekly rate … increasing to £1.60".— [Official Report, 13/3/95; col. WA 34.]
Surely the Government must agree that that would be an improvement on the present situation. There is a question of principle in this regard. I want the Minister to make clear whether the Government believe that there should be an age differential as regards pension payments. If they believe that that should be abandoned in favour of "targeting", as they call it, perhaps they should tell everybody over the age of 80 that they must manage in future without the 2 pence or on 2 pence, if it stays at that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that when the noble Baroness reaches the age of 80, which I believe is in November, she will not be able to stand us all a drink in the Bishop's Bar on the basis of the 25 pence per week increase which she will receive. The main point is that we believe—and quite clearly, since 1971, governments of both parties have believed—that it is wiser to target extra resources on those elderly people who actually need them. For that reason, there is the higher pensioner premium for those pensioners who require income support. That is £25.15 per week for a single pensioner and £35.95 per week for couples.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for tax purposes, the allowance for the
1022
over-80s has been increased time and time again by this Government? In that way, they are helping the lower paid who are aged over 80.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to draw attention to the fact that there are special tax allowances for those aged over 80 who pay tax. Therefore, anybody aged over 80 who pays tax receives a higher personal allowance than someone aged under 80.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the addition for the over-80s was introduced after an effective campaign led by the late and very much respected Airey Neave? In this 50th anniversary of the end of the last war, in which Mr. Airey Neave played such a significant part, would it not be fitting to honour his part in the war and his life by carrying on his work and increasing that supplement at this time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House who remember Airey Neave do so with a great deal of affection, especially those who were his colleagues in the other place. We have had the war argument before and I have already had to give away £40 million on that one.
I return to the point which I made that if one is to use properly the resources which the taxpayer provides, it is fair and proper that they are used in a targeted way. That is why we have decided—and quite clearly the party opposite did so when it was in government—that the best way to do that is through pensioner premiums for those pensioners who receive income support.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am sure that most people will agree with the policy of targeting those benefits. But the inescapable logic is to stop paying those sums of money which are of no value to anybody. It is far better that those sums should be directed towards the targeting.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the total sum of money is £30 million, the noble Lord makes a valid point. However, I should say to him that it is a brave man or woman who would suggest to the House that the 25 pence should be removed, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, does not think that it is worth very much.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was the Labour Party, whose members wish to increase those payments, which abolished the Christmas bonus when in government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point; indeed, the Labour Party's record on the matter is not all that terrific. Of course, anyone who listened carefully to my answer, in which I said that the 25 pence was from 1971 onwards, will realise that when the party opposite was in government, it came to the same sort of decisions to which we have come since 1979.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House of the administrative costs incurred in making such payments—in other words, of effectively notifying people that the payments will be coming and making the administrative changes as regards the payment itself? It

1023
does not seem to be a terribly sensible way of going about it to spend so much on administration for such a very small benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to say that we do not spend very much on the administration of the benefit because it is simply added automatically to the computer-assisted automatic payouts of the total pension to which the pensioner is entitled.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that economic circumstances change over time and that, while the 25 pence, as it now is—or 2 pence in its devalued amount—was a worthwhile payment in 1971, governments over the years have done so much both as regards tax allowances for pensioners and also with the value of the pension itself that it is now no longer worth continuing with the supplement? Therefore, would it not be far better spent, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, suggested, on such things as extra disability allowances for pensioners; or, indeed, on any other social security purpose?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. As I mentioned, the cost is £30 million a year. Moreover, to up-rate it to today's value would cost another £160 million a year. If I had £160 million a year extra to spend in the social security field, I might think that there were other priorities. The real increase in the income-related benefits to all pensioners since 1989 is now worth something like £1.2 billion.

Council Tax: Banding Appeals
3.16 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many appeals against decisions on banding for council tax purposes are still outstanding, and whether council tax payers face demands for payment on the basis of such bandings, and when it is anticipated that those appeals will be dealt with.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, 76,106 of the 864,136 initial appeals lodged in England, 5,936 of the 53,948 lodged in Wales, and 12,090 of the 98,236 lodged in Scotland were outstanding at the end of March. All but a handful of those appeals are expected to be settled by the summer. Council tax bills for all dwellings, including those that are subject to appeal proceedings, are calculated on the basis of the bands shown in valuation lists. If a banding is subsequently found to have been too high, any excess payments are refunded or credited against future bills.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, is it not a fact that where an appeal is submitted, the tax payer is compelled to pay the full amount claimed and has to await
1024
a decision on his appeal? Further, is it not also a fact that those appeals are handled by the Inland Revenue which is being very dilatory in dealing with them?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if we allowed council tax payers to pay bills on the basis of the band that they claim rather than the band that they have been designated, it would open the floodgates to many opportunistic claims. It would also tempt people deliberately to delay making settlements. The appeals are heard by valuation tribunals which are independent bodies. Their impartiality has not been in doubt.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl pay particular attention to appeals submitted from the borough of Basingtoke and Deane, which I understand is of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Further, will the noble Earl confirm that the percentage settled in the year 1994–95 is only 19 per cent. and that, therefore, 81 per cent. of claims are still outstanding? Will the noble Earl ask the Inland Revenue to get on with them?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I said, it has nothing to do with the Inland Revenue. I cannot comment specifically on the settlement rate in Basingstoke and Deane. It is less a matter for the Government than for the valuation tribunals. I should stress that of the 23.5 million dwellings originally banded for tax, only 4 per cent. of bandings were disputed. We now have approximately 90 per cent. of those claims settled.

UK-US Relations
3.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy asked Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the United Kingdom and the United States of America still have a "special relationship".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the term "special relationship" is not one we use. But our relations with the United States remain very close. Defence, nuclear and intelligence matters and, of course, trade and investment are at the heart of the relationship and are greatly valued by both of us.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Many people in other lands have been quite jealous of the relationship between the USA and the UK. There were, of course, not so much misunderstandings as minor disagreements with Mr. Winston Churchill and, later, with Mr. Clement Attlee. However, those matters were all resolved to the advantage of the UK and, indeed, America. Therefore, should we not keep the good relations going?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can inform the House that the relationship is not only of paramount importance but has gained in substance, as was evident during the Prime Minister's recent visit. Our trade relations have never been stronger. We invest more in one

1025
another's countries than anywhere else. We are indeed in a good relationship, but, of course, we must work at it to keep it that way.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the fact that we share a common language with the United States; that we have inherited with the United States the common law; that a large number of persons in the United States come from one or other of this group of islands and its different nations; and that the United States shares a land frontier with the largely English speaking nation of Canada with whom we have such a special relationship too?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It does not matter what area of business it is; our relations are clear and close. For instance, as regards the vexed issue we were discussing in your Lordships' House earlier this week, it is a US Under-Secretary who is at present in Rwanda and Burundi and who will share completely the results of that work with me on his return, as we would with the United States. If it is a matter of a much larger issue, we find ourselves sharing information, and we hope that that will continue for a long while to come.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, while I accept what the Minister says about relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States, does she not agree with the previous American ambassador to the United Kingdom that the relationships with the United States that matter in terms of a special relationship are those with the European Union, and that therefore it is Britain's position within the European Union, which could be a major and influential position, that matters in conducting our relationships with the United States?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is clear to those of us who work on these relationships that the relationship with Britain is important to the United States. The very fact that our position within the European Union attracts so much United States investment and interest in what we do is an added benefit, but the relationship is very much between the two of us, as well as with other countries in the European Union.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said about Mr. Raymond Seitz, the former US ambassador to Britain, and his statement at the end of his posting here that the special relationship with the US was dependent on Britain playing a positive role in Europe, is it not clear that the disarray in the Conservative Party on Europe, and the hostility towards Europe expressed by some members of the Cabinet, will damage the future of our special relationship?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness's paraphrase of what Mr. Raymond Seitz said to the Pilgrims' meeting is a little generous in one sense; it was her own interpretation. I would just say this. We see an important European Union/US relationship because we know that we have a useful role to play on behalf of Europe, with our European partners, in North America. That is why so many people, including Sir Leon Brittan in a speech he is making today, are attracted by the debate
1026
on the possibility of a transatlantic free trade area and a useful role for Europe and North America working together. This party has a positive attitude to getting Europe right. Perhaps the noble Baroness will bring that to the notice of the 59 Labour MPs who voted against her party in the Maastricht debate.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I spend part of each year in the mid-western state of Iowa. Is the Minister aware, following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, that masses of Americans are acutely conscious of the links of culture and history with this country and that they long, above all, to visit this country? Should not these matters also be borne in mind when assessing the relationship between the two countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we very much welcome the visitors from the United States who, I think, will come in greater numbers this year than perhaps has been the case for some years past. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said, it is the language and the long experience we have had together which make them want to come. They also want to understand the successes we are having, the successes of trade and of development. Also, many of them have money invested in US companies which have chosen to come to Britain above all other countries in Europe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree, despite her earlier answers, that our growing flirtation with the Western European Union risks making the USA rather less keen on its special relationship with us? If there is any danger of this, is not that growing flirtation both extremely ungrateful and absolute folly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a misnomer to call the relationship at which we have worked with the Western European Union over a long period a flirtation. That can lead to dangerous outcomes and we are not engaged in them. It is absolutely right that there should be a closer defence relationship between the nations of Europe. Some members of the Western European Union have never had as close a relationship as we have with the United States in NATO. One thing WEU can help us to do is complement the relationships we already have. I always need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that the relationship is not a zero sum game; the closer our relationship with the United States and the closer our relationship with Europe, the more we add to the total of European/US relations.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an important part of that trading relationship is air travel? Will she tell the House whether the Government believe that negotiations on air travel arrangements between Britain and the United States should be a matter for the British Government or for the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, they are a matter for the British Government.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, is it not the case that the United States has a special relationship with a whole number of countries, for example, with Japan and with

1027
Germany? These special relationships are different. Ours is particularly close and particularly deep. Is it not better not to talk about it too much?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have been careful in trying not to be special about anything the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned at the beginning. There is a great deal of work behind the scenes, week in, week out, at all levels of government and at all levels of business. Because we share the language, there is a great deal of understanding, but we should never take it for granted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness make clear that while we have the greatest respect for the United States of Europe—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I meant to say the United States of America. Will the noble Baroness make it clear that we do not want to emulate the United States by joining a United States of Europe? I think I got it right that time. Will she underline what she has just said—that the Conservative Party, as well as, I hope, the Labour Party, do not favour a European superstate and will ensure the sovereign integrity of this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that was a notable slip of the noble Lord's tongue. Knowing what he really meant to say, I can tell him that certainly there is no question of a United States of Europe. He has heard me say that on many occasions and I can repeat it firmly and without contradiction today. I believe that the member states of the European Union should learn to work together ever more closely. By our greater understanding we can help to prevent many of the problems which have bedevilled Europe, albeit thankfully, more than 50 years ago now.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we have special relationships with the United States and the British Commonwealth of nations and that acting together, the United Kingdom, many of the Commonwealth countries and the USA represent one of the best bastions of freedom and democracy ever created?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.

Chief Officers of Police: Fixed Term Contracts
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on fixed tens contracts for chief officers of police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, all new appointments to the ranks of chief constable and assistant chief constable after 1st April 1995 will be for fixed terms. Serving officers in those ranks may, by agreement with their police authority, move to a fixed-term appointment on or after 1st April.
1028
Appointments for fixed terms, especially for the top managers of an organisation, have important benefits for both the individual and the organisation and reflect established arrangements in other walks of life, including the public sector.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's policy has received a serious setback with the refusal of the Chief Constable of Hampshire, a most distinguished police officer, to sign a short-term contract? Given what the Minister said about benefits, in what way does she believe his performance would be improved were he to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that there has been a setback. The Chief Constable of Hampshire has an absolute right under the arrangements to make the choice as to whether he wishes to sign up for a fixed-term appointment. He is perfectly free to exercise that choice. We have made it possible for him to do that, and he has done so. It is also important to note that that was a personal choice. Many of his chief officer colleagues will choose to participate in fixed-term contracts.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, Mr. Hoddinott is not only Chief Constable of Hampshire but also President of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Is the noble Baroness aware that in a letter which has been published in the press Mr. Hoddinott has drawn attention to the fact that he proposes to refuse the new contract on the constitutional grounds that it would fetter his independence from undue political interference? Is that not why we opposed this proposal so strongly when we discussed the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have noted that Mr. Hoddinott is president of the association. I made the point that he acted in a personal capacity and that many of his chief officer colleagues will make a different choice. I also made it clear that there were benefits. It is worth recording that the association of which he is president agreed, in the Police Negotiating Board, to both fixed-term contracts and performance related pay.
To address a hypothetical situation, if an authority strayed into areas which were properly the preserve of the chief constable and interfered with his proper duties, there would have to be complicity between all the different representatives on the police authority—the elected members, magistrates and appointed members. That would be unthinkable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to follow the answer that the Minister has just given, is it not the case that the position adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and by the Opposition at the time of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, was that it was the combination of fixed-term contracts and performance related pay which presented the threat to the independence of Chief Police Officers? Secondly, is there not a curious contradiction between the Government's view that accountability of chief police officers is

1029
achieved by fixed-term contracts but accountability for the Director of the Prison Service is apparently now to be achieved by a month-by-month contract?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is worth recording that the Director of the Prison Service is also on a fixed-term contract and is accountable for his performance. Speaking from this Dispatch Box recently I explained the reason why, when that appointment was first made, accountability for performance was not put in place. It has now been put in place. I repeat, that it was the police authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers who agreed that arrangement as part of the new pay structure for the police, within the Police Negotiation Board, and in fact made the recommendation themselves. Therefore, I am not sure that the comparison the noble Lord makes is a valid one.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House what restrictions, if any, exist on the renewal of such fixed-term contracts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is absolutely none. When chief police officers or assistant chief police officers come to the end of fixed-term contracts they are entirely free to apply for reappointment.
Lord Knights: My Lords, if, as I believe is the position, performance related pay is to be part of the chief police officer's contract, can the Minister tell the House by what criteria his performance is to be measured and who will make the assessment? Bearing in mind the importance of his relationships not only with his police authority but also with many other bodies such as the councils within his area, the Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office officials and perhaps the Home Secretary himself, how is that aspect to be fed into the assessment of performance?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, who has a great deal more experience of these matters than I have, knows that there is such a thing as the police plan. That will form the basis for the work of the police authority in the course of a year. At the end of the year, in negotiations between the police authority and the chief police officers themselves, a judgment will be made as to whether performance was good, bad or indifferent, and whether it was at the median level or above average. Up to 7.5 per cent. of salary is available for recognising outstanding performance above the norm.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in showing such apparent indifference to the loss of a distinguished officer she risks sounding like the Australian Government which, on being told that one of its policemen had been eaten by cannibals, issued a statement saying that there were plenty more where he came from?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am bound to answer a question with a question. What indifference have I shown, and what police officer have we lost?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister advised the House that at the end of their short-term contracts chief
1030
police officers have to reapply for their own jobs. Can the Minister advise the House whether that is the mechanism by which Cabinet Ministers are reappointed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the performance of Cabinet Ministers is reviewed for reappointment every four or five years by the British electorate. That is how they are accountable. It is a very sharp accountability indeed.
When a chief police officer or assistant chief police officer comes to the end of a fixed-term contract—and it should be remembered that the contract is for up to 10 years for assistant chief police officers and up to seven years for chief police officers—there is an automatic review. It will be a matter for the officer concerned as to whether he wishes to be considered for further appointment. The post would have to be advertised and it would be for the authority to determine whether or not there should be a reappointment.

Civil Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the proof of certain documentary evidence in civil proceedings and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the amendment of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to enable effect to be given to certain international protocols done on the 10th day of June 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Appeal Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Jobseekers Bill
3.40 p.m.
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 9 [Income and capital: general]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) Where a person or the partner of a person is in receipt of earnings of a prescribed description, regulations under subsection (1) shall make provision—

(a) for a minimum weekly amount of those earnings to be disregarded in respect of the person and any partner of his ("the disregard"); and

(b) for the minimum disregard to be applied either weekly (as £10 per week in respect of a person or £20 per week in respect of a couple if both partners have earnings) or quarterly (as £130 per quarter in respect of a person or £260 per quarter in respect of a couple if both partners have earnings).").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 111 I speak also to Amendment No. 171 with which it is grouped.
These are probing amendments which seek to increase the disregard on part-time earnings which may be retained by someone on income support. At present a single person may retain £5 if he or she is on income support; and for a couple the sum is £10. The amendment seeks to explore the implications of raising that disregard from £5 to £10 for a single person and from £10 to £20 for a couple as recommended by the Government's social security advisory committee last year.
We are talking about those in part-time work. I refer to people who work for less than 24 hours a week who also receive income support. Their part-time earnings are deducted pound for pound but they are allowed to retain a modest element—at present £5 or £10. They then go on to income support. Obviously those with children who work more than 24 hours a week are entitled to family credit as an in-work benefit.
We all agree, as we stated in earlier discussions, that part-time work is a valuable way of remaining within the labour market. If we are honest, I believe that we would also agree that £5 for a single person or £10 for a couple is an inadequate incentive for a person on income support to go to work, with the additional costs of travel, clothing, perhaps bought food, and so on.
The Government—we give credit to them—have recognised that lack of incentive by rolling up a proportion of those part-time earnings into a back-to-work bonus when one moves off income support. That is obviously welcome. It will be much appreciated at the time. It comes into play if one moves off income support at 16 hours a week. However, we believe that that scheme is too far into the future and will not operate as the psychological carrot the Government believe that it will.
Our perspective is the same as that of the Government. We wish to encourage people to move into and stay in part-time work. We have the same goals as the Government. However, we believe that the right way to encourage people to do that is to increase the disregard
1032
while in part-time work. That is a simple but straightforward proposal. The principle is well established.
Our first argument is that in order to meet the Government's objective of encouraging those on income support to move into part-time work, we should increase the disregard that people can retain before having their net earnings reduced pound for pound.
The second argument is that the proposal is long overdue. In November 1975 the figure was £4. It was not up-rated to £5 until 1988. If the figure of £4 had remained, and had simply been inflation proofed, it would now be worth £16 a week. The £5 figure of November 1988 would now be worth between £7 and £8 a week. Both figures are a more realistic contribution to the additional cost of being in work.
It is the same as with capital rules. If the Government do not inflation proof, and therefore increase, the disregards each and every year, it amounts effectively to a cut. We say that government should rectify that anomaly and thereafter "RPI" it so that a disregard which government intended to be worth £5 in 1988 retains its value. Otherwise the figure will not act as the incentive for work for which we all hope. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness is quite right about disregards. The Minister knows well my arguments about the matter; I shall not rehearse them again. The noble Baroness is also right about the need for up-rating. Up-rating of capital sums, disregards and savings limits, is done on an irregular basis. Since up-rating is almost of necessity done by regulation, it is extremely difficult for this Chamber to find an appropriate moment to address the issue. If the Minister does not want the general concern about regulations to become more intense, I hope that we shall see some of those capital limits up-rated in the next up-rating statement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The jobseeker's allowance will have common rules for contribution-based and income-based claimants. We have made clear that most claimants will have a £5 weekly disregard, while couples will benefit from a new £10 disregard.
The noble Baroness described the amendment as probing. I understand the attractions of the proposal. Indeed, I put it in the form of a probing amendment to the officials of the Department of Social Security when I joined, as I thought full of fresh ideas, discovering (to no one's surprise, I am sure) that most of the ideas had already been considered.
However, the problem with the proposal is that the costs are considerable. I shall come to them in a moment. It is difficult to quantify how many more people one would encourage—additional to those who are already doing some work while unemployed; and, of course, they do not need additional encouragement.
Increases in the disregard are costly and in incentive terms —because of the point that I have made about what is rather inelegantly called "dead weight"—they are a poor use of resources. It would be difficult not to align the disregard across JSA, housing benefit and council tax benefit. If the amount is raised by £5 per week the cost for that total disregard would be something like £90 million. If it were for JSA alone, the cost would be £25 million. I

1033
believe that there are better ways of spending that kind of money, if it were available, than the specific way that we are invited to consider.
We have looked at how to attract and encourage people back to work. One of the ways that we have chosen—the noble Baroness rightly referred to it—is the back-to-work bonus scheme. Through that scheme there will be clear water between out of work benefits and the financial advantage of full-time work. We believe that at least 150,000 people a year will receive payments under the scheme once the scheme is up and running. We shall come to that scheme later. Essentially, above the £5 disregard which anyone is allowed to earn while they are unemployed, half will be rolled up and retained up to a value of £1,000 so that when they go back to work they will receive that back-to-work bonus to help them. We shall discuss that scheme in a little while; I do not wish to go into more detail. However, I believe that that is an important add-on to the straightforward £5 disregard. We have already debated raising the hours which a partner can work from 16 to 24 without removing the entitlement to benefit.
I return to the point that I made in the middle of my remarks. The cost is quite considerable. For JSA only, the sum is £25 million. That would be quite difficult to hold to. One would have to align it across the system, which would cost £90 million. When I made the suggestion, I wondered whether that was the best use we could make of the £90 million. The £5 disregard strikes a balance in providing an incentive to do some work and the back-to-work bonus adds to the incentive without creating a disincentive to take full-time work. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will realise, like me a few months ago, that what sounds a good idea involves problems of an expensive nature. The amount of up to £90 million could be better spent in other ways.
Earl Russell: I understand the Minister's difficulties with quantification. Quantifying the effects of the amendment would quickly sort the optimists from the pessimists, but the pessimists are not always right. Will the Minister try to improve his methods of quantification? While he is doing so, will he agree that the appropriate way to keep his options open is to up-rate in line with inflation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is extremely difficult to research behavioural aspects of such a matter. In any case, the noble Earl asks me to do the up-rating. I return to my original point: if the up-rating takes us to £16—a point made earlier—it would cost a considerable sum. I do not believe that that is the best use for the amount of money that we can find in the social security system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How does the Minister know that if he has not done the modelling referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? If by increasing the bonus there were X number of additional people willing to work, and therefore not so dependent on income support, the proposal would pay for itself. But we do not know how that balance would work; we are speculating.
The present situation is that a single person working fewer than 24 hours per week is only allowed to retain £5 of that against the income support payment, if he is on low
1034
wages. That is £1 per day if he works a few hours every day. I believe that the cheapest single fare on the underground is £1 so if that person travels by underground to a job in London, as I understand it he will have to pay £2 a day just to work there. That is £10 a week on fares at the cheapest rate. That is to say nothing about appropriate clothes. The Minister is very "up front" and gung-ho about appropriate clothes, appearance and behaviour when confronting an employer. Where will the money be found for that from the £5? Where will the underground fare come from? Where will that person find the additional cost of buying a lunch, even from a sandwich shop, as opposed to having lunch at home? Why should anyone seek to work if all they can retain is £5 and, as a result, they are out of pocket?
If the Government assume that people are economically rational—and that is the basis of arguments about targeting, perversity and so on—they must assume that people sit down and say: "How much will it cost me to work? A minimum of £2 a day on underground fares and, say, a modest £1.50 in addition for lunch. I need to retain £15 a week even to be within reach of not being worse off. What am I allowed to retain? Only £5! Why, therefore, does it make sense for me to do what the Minister would like and seek work?"
I am sure that the Committee will regard my argument as unanswerable. I believe that it is. We do not know how many additional people would come into work as a result of the amendment. I believe that we would all agree that we need research and modelling. Only the department can do that.
It is odd that the Minister's enthusiasm for the proposal when he first came into office did not extend so far as seeking adequate information-based answers to allay his anxieties. He was easily deflected by merely being told that it would cost money.
The second government argument was the cost: £25 million for JSA; £90 million if we included housing benefit and council tax benefit. At Committee stage in the other place, the figure given to the Committee by the Minister, Ann Widdecombe, was £75 million. So the figure has increased by £15 million in as many weeks. The cost is £25 million for JSA. So far as I can see at the moment the budget on unemployment benefit is £1,260 million. We are talking about an additional £25 million. The Minister cannot tell me that that figure of £1,260 million is not rounded up, give or take £1 million here, £5 million or £10 million there. Of course it is. The Minister knows that the figure of £25 million on a total unemployment benefit of £1,260 million, before we come to the £16,000 million spent on income support, would be lost in the total equation. It is a rounded off figure by the department and we all know it.
The proposal would mean that the disregard would in future be RPI'd. Everyone in the House and in Parliament accepts that benefits should be RPI'd. Income support is raised each and every year; old age pensions are raised every year according to inflation. Why? If we did not do that, they would effectively be cut. When a disregard is not RPI'd, each and every year, effectively it is cut. So it is unfair because we are cutting the disregard. It is not expensive. The amount would be lost in the small print. So far as I can judge, it would help to encourage people to

1035
work who quite reasonably say that they cannot afford to go to work on an extra £1 a day. I repeat, that £1 will not even cover the cost of the single underground fare. I ask the Minister to comment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As all Members of the Committee know, the noble Baroness believes that all her arguments are unanswerable. That is usually the introduction when she replies to me. They may or may not be unanswerable, I believe that most are capable of an answer, but they certainly cost more money. I have not yet kept a tally of the additional expenditure which the noble Baroness would have imposed on the Treasury, if all her unanswerable amendments had been accepted by myself. The till would be ticking up substantially and that is where priorities arise.
I invite the noble Baroness to consider some of her unanswerable arguments and ask herself what priority she would give this proposal. Every suggestion of hers seems to have top priority. I made the point that while I saw some advantages, I was persuaded that if the money were available—which I confirm would be £75 million if up-rated since 1988—it would be better spent in other ways. One of the other ways in which we propose to spend the money is on proposals like the back-to-work bonus. Such suggestions are more sensible than an increase in the disregard.
I notice that the noble Baroness said that the proposal would pay for itself. I do not believe that it would. It would only do so to the extent that someone might take a little part-time work who did none at the time. The dead-weight—as I inelegantly described it—involves the £5 extra which someone already in work would have added to the present £5 disregard. That would cost the Exchequer exactly £5, because £5 more in benefit would have to be paid. So I am afraid that the one thing it would not do is to pay for itself.
The idea that the increase is needed to encourage people to take part-time work when they are unemployed does not hold much water because many people take part-time work. Many unemployed people see the benefits in the longer term of retaining a link with the labour market. I believe that the £5 disregard, which should stay where it is, in addition to the back-to-work bonus, which we will come to later, represents a positive way to encourage people back to work and to help them at the time when they go back to work. With that additional explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister said that everything the noble Baroness suggested cost money. He does not know how much, but he is certain that we cannot afford it. If certain things happened, if the elasticities were in a certain direction, it would cost nothing at all. When the noble Lord first went to the department he had a good idea. He was put off by simulations, dead-weight arguments and knock-on effects. Statisticians always back people off with simulations, dead-weight arguments and knock-on effects. The only way to challenge them is by empirical experiment. If the noble Lord would do what we ask or accept the much more modest suggestion of the noble
1036
Earl, he may well discover that nothing at all would be lost. But he cannot find out merely by simulations, dead-weight analysis and knock-on effects.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister is right when he says that one must count the costs. But if he is going to use his calculator, can he please try to use it correctly? The priorities must depend on the relationship between the costs and the savings. Calculating the savings is extremely difficult, and one may well get it wrong. However, will the Minister agree that a calculation made without the savings is certainly wrong?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Elasticity, I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, tends to pull in both directions, or sometimes in every direction if the elastic is not well held at one end. I have very little to add to the arguments I made. Savings costing is important as well. But the fact is that any logical look at this matter will reveal that the majority of people who would gain from this extra £5 disregard would already be in some form of part-time work. Therefore, if the intention of the amendment is to encourage them to take up part-time work, that encouragement does not seem to me to be needed.
The costs are important. We have increased costs in this field, and some of those increases are in the Bill. I had a number of ideas when I went to the department. We shall come to some of them later today. I believe that they offer better value for money than does this one. Not all one's ideas are good when one looks into matters deeply, although I realise that that is a view that I alone may hold and that the noble Baroness may not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister may regret admitting that he thought that this was a good idea when he first replied since at a later stage we shall obviously wish to pursue the matter. He asks what are our priorities. I would have thought that our priorities are the same as those of the Government; namely, to encourage people back into work. The difference between us is that we believe the most effective way of doing so is to increase the demand for labour and not simply to coerce people into an over-stocked labour market.
Nonetheless, we want to encourage people back into work. One of the well tried and tested ways of doing so is for those who are currently unemployed to acquire a part-time job. They go into the labour market; they learn the skills; they are available to learn about the openings for longer hours and full-time work. We all accept that; it is common knowledge.
The Minister says that the costs would be excessive. I accept that the cost of £25 million on a total budget of £1,260 million would be additional in so far as it would be paid to people already in part-time work. But let us look at the priority; namely, bringing those who are unemployed into part-time work. Let us say that such a person is offered a part-time job paying £40 a week. He currently receives £46.50 a week as a single person over 25 on income support. He would currently lose £35 of that £40 in benefit. He would retain only £5 of it and

1037
the rest would he income support. He thinks about it and says, "No, I can't afford it. I can't afford the cost of the fares". It means that the Government are paying out his full allowance for income support (£46.50) instead of paying him just £10, because the rest would have been netted off his part-time earnings. The Minister cannot tell us what the net cost to JSA would be of such people coming into work. All he has given us—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right—is the gross cost of adding it in, assuming that most of that money would go to people already in work. What he has not done is look at the savings on those who are currently unemployed who would come into work and, as a result, to whom the Government would not have to pay the full income support amount because they would themselves contribute £20, £30 or £40 of that amount from their own earnings. Can the Minister give the figure for that? If he cannot, he has not addressed the central issue of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not know whether we shall make much progress in bridging the gap between us. It seems self-evident that if those people who are in part-time work at the moment and benefiting from the £5 disregard receive a further £5 disregard, then that must mean a loss to the Exchequer since they will be paid £5 more in benefit.
I am asked how many people may decide to start part-time work who do not work at the moment. That is difficult to quantify. But logic tells me (it may be that my logic is not very good) that that will be nothing like the same number as those already in part-time work who would receive what I suggested earlier was a deadweight payment.
It is a question of priorities. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget something like £600 million of added incentives to help people back into work. That is a lot of money. We believe that that is the right priority, the right way to go. If the noble Baroness decides that this is more than a probing amendment and she wants to put it to the Committee, as one might begin to think from the eloquence of her argument, then I invite my noble friends to join me in the Lobby against the proposal and in favour of the proposals we shall debate later in the afternoon which involve encouraging and helping people at the point at which they return to work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I said that this was a probing amendment, and that is why I shall not put it to the vote. The Minister has finally conceded that his figures of £25 million and so on are utterly speculative. As he said, he is relying on logic because he does not have information to show what savings would be achieved in coaxing those who are currently unemployed into part-time work. That is what he said; he does not know. But we know that the amount will certainly be much less than £25 million, because £25 million is the gross cost without any savings set against it. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to ensure that when we return to this amendment on Report his department has done some proper work so that we are not asked to rely on the Minister's intuition, logic, speculation or hypothesis in the absence of hard
1038
information from which to see how much the true cost would be of doing something that was decent, fair, civilised and humane. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 112 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 113 and 114.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert ("which, in the ease of the income of a disabled person, shall include fees payable for sitting on a Disability Appeal Tribunal for no more than one day a week").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 120.
Amendment No. 113 is to ensure that payments made for sitting on a disability appeal tribunal are not taken into account as income. The amendment also relates to the anticipated movement of large numbers of people from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance. Some of these disabled people may have received incapacity benefit at the same time as undertaking types of activity which are "exempt work" and therefore disregarded when entitlement to incapacity benefit is considered. Exempt work for incapacity benefit purposes includes duties undertaken as a member of a disability appeal tribunal or the disability living allowance advisory board, provided that this is not undertaken on more than one day a week.
In the case of sitting on a tribunal, both the activity involved in being a panel member for one day a week, and the fees that are payable are disregarded for the purposes of incapacity benefit. The reason for making this activity "exempt work" was to encourage people with experience of disability to use their expertise on a disability appeal tribunal. That expertise will still be required even if in one week the person is regarded as incapable and in the next is required to sign on for jobseeker's allowance.
I turn to Amendment No. 114. Some disabled people may have savings only because of a lump sum payment made in settlement of a personal injury—possibly the injury that disabled them—which takes them above the limit for the income-related jobseeker's allowance. People can have only £3,000 in savings before their benefit is affected by an assumed return on their capital; and £8,000 is the cut-off point above which no benefit is payable. This level of £8,000 has not been increased since 1990.
Personal injury payments can be distinguished from other kinds of capital in that they are payable for a specific purpose. Current income support rules also allow for the value of a trust fund and the right to receive payments from that fund to be disregarded as capital where such a fund is derived from a payment made in consequence of personal injury. Can my noble friend confirm if the intention is to carry over this provision into the income-related jobseeker's allowance?
Where there is no trust fund, compensation payments do count as capital and can therefore disqualify someone from weekly benefit, so that, for example, someone who was injured at work who had been awarded £15,000 in respect of this injury would only be entitled to six months' contributory jobseeker's allowance, after which time benefit would cease as his savings would take him above the limit. This amendment would allow all such payments to be disregarded, whether or not a trust is in existence. I understand that the Department of Social Security's research, in its Report No. 19, indicates that only around a third of a sample of claimants on invalidity benefit had savings, so it is likely that the public expenditure implications would be limited.
The other two amendments also concern income from capital. Prescribed income levels for disabled people should, in my view, take full account of the extra costs of daily living and the extra cost of job seeking that are incurred by disabled people. All payments of the disability living allowance and all payments of all disability premiums under the income support scheme should be paid in addition to any jobseeker's allowance. All payments from the independent living fund and any payments for personal care that in future may be paid by local authorities should all, in my view, be similarly disregarded in respect of limits imposed on income, and paid in addition to any jobseeker's allowance.
All capital earmarked for expenditure in respect of a person's disability, as I said earlier, should be disregarded. In the past, for example, savings of a mobility allowance to pay for a holiday or a Mutability car used to be disregarded under the old supplementary benefits scheme. That is no longer possible and some disabled people are consequently severely disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to support all three of the amendments to which I have put my name. In matters to do with disability it is very often the imagination we need to get through to, not the intellect. I have never forgotten the case of Senator John Glenn, as he subsequently became, who went to the moon in the very early days of those activities. He came down safely and almost immediately afterwards broke his leg falling over in his bath. It is said that when one is in the instant of an accident one may sometimes review all one's past life in a few seconds. I have never had that experience but a few days ago I had the experience of slipping very heavily in my bath. I was falling in such a way that I would have landed very heavily on my spine. Having been mentally conditioned by the Minister's calculator, I immediately started totting up in those few seconds, while I, in the event, recovered myself, all the extra expenses which would be needed to convert my house so that I could carry on living and, I hope, working. Before I had succeeded in recovery they had come to quite a large figure in a very short time.
The costs of disability are very real. If they can be met, in some cases one can continue working, one can continue paying income tax, and the Exchequer will benefit. The OPCS, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has often argued in this Chamber, quite severely under-estimated the costs of disability. On the occasion
1040
I described that point was brought home to me very rapidly. Amendment No. 114, which deals with capital as a consequence of personal injury, is simply equitable. I hope the Minister will accept it.
The point about the disability appeal tribunal is an argument we have heard many times before. It is sheer common sense and a non-party matter. I hope the Minister will accept that amendment also.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We support these amendments. We all know that disabled people have on average lower incomes and higher costs. We explored that point particularly when we were dealing with the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. There are additional costs for heating, diet, laundry, clothing and adaptions. We also know from the research of organisations such as RADAR, the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance that on average disabled people have only two-thirds of the income of non-disabled people while their additional living costs are likely to amount to £50 or £60 a week more. That is recognised in the extra disability premiums attached to income support. We hope therefore that this problem of the need for additional income because of the additional costs to be met through disability will be recognised in the JSA both in terms of income and capital disregards. We welcome the amendments.
Lord Rix: My name is not attached to this amendment. I only wish it were. Unfortunately, I use a shower bath and therefore I have not had the chance in the recent past to tot up the figures concerned with disability. But I do know that they are considerable. I support both the previous speakers in that regard.
I should like to point out something to the Minister on which he may care to reflect. In the recent past an amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Freyberg in your Lordships' House with regard to war widows was agreed to. It was based, perhaps, on emotion, but it was also based on fairness. I am glad to say that your Lordships' House accepted the amendment, as did another place. I believe that fairness applies to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115 and 120. It could only redound to the credit of your Lordships' House and to the Government if they were to accept these amendments on behalf of disabled people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is not often that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his amusing historical examples, gives a piece of history that is modern enough to be within my lifetime. If I am right, I do not actually think that Glenn did go to the moon. He may have been the first man to go around the earth. Indeed, he may not even have been that. It may have been a Russian. But he certainly was not the first man to go to the moon. If I am right about that, I am afraid that all my belief in the noble Earl's more distant historical stories will have been shattered. However, I am sure that I can forgive him one small slip of the memory in this case.
Amendment No. 113, moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, would allow people with a disability special treatment in JSA. It would mean that any fee received

1041
for sitting on a disability appeal tribunal would be ignored in calculating that person's entitlement to both contributory and income-based jobseeker's allowance.
I fully recognise the useful and important service which unemployed disabled people do by sitting on a disability appeal tribunal. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to ignore substantial income received by unemployed people who carry out any work while on benefit, however worth while the nature of the task. The current fee for a lay member of a tribunal is £113. That is a substantial sum which this amendment would allow the claimant to receive in addition to his full benefit entitlement.
Disregarding sums received by those sitting on disability appeal tribunals would lead to inequities between claimants with a disability and other claimants, many of whom could have justifiable, if different, claims for similar special treatments. Indeed, they may also sit on appeal tribunals. The basic principle is that JSA is there to support claimants while they are unemployed and looking for work. That principle is seriously undermined if claimants are able to top up their benefit with earnings which are considerable and which could reduce the incentive for them to move off benefit and back into employment.
There is already special provision in JSA for disabled people who undertake small amounts of work. They will be entitled to a £15 disregard on earnings. That is £10 more than the standard disregard, which we discussed earlier, and £5 more than the couple disregard of £10. In addition, under JSA, as I explained in the previous amendment, half of any amount above the disregard, which includes the £113 fee that I mentioned, will in fact be counted towards the build-up of a new back-to-work bonus. That in its turn will mean that people would be better off; they will get that money when they leave unemployment and find a job. Therefore they will get some of the money back at that point.
I hope that my noble friend accepts that I fully understand the point he makes and very much appreciate the work that people do on such tribunals. But I believe that it would not be right to discriminate—if I may say so—in favour of disabled people against other people in similar circumstances of unemployment or whatever who may sit on appeal tribunals.
I turn to Amendment No. 114, which seeks to allow any capital payment received as a result of a personal injury to be disregarded in assessing entitlement to benefit. I can assure my noble friend that there is no need for this amendment. It is our intention to model the arrangements for income-based jobseeker's allowance closely on the arrangements which apply in income support. Regulations already provide that any capital sums deriving from personal injury payments are disregarded if they are placed in trust. We intend to carry forward that principle in JSA.
The arrangements enable long-term provision to be made for people who have ongoing needs resulting from their injuries. As now, £10 per week of any discretionary income from the trust, plus any discretionary payments
1042
for items not covered by benefit, can be disregarded. Any other payments of income (by which I mean payments not out of a discretionary trust)—
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. He said that capital placed in trust would be disregarded. What is the position? Does the disabled person have to put that capital into trust himself? Some people are disabled in such a way that they cannot always handle their own affairs. Alternatively, can that capital be put in trust by someone else acting on their behalf? Or does it have to be put into trust by the person paying the damages for the injury?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is a fairly detailed question but I would guess that the question of by whom the money is put into trust is of no importance. In fact, whether the person himself put it in or whether it was put in on his behalf, the position remains as I stated. So it does not matter.
I was dealing with other payments of income and I had just mentioned the example of payments not out of a discretionary trust. They will be taken into account. We believe that allowing people to benefit from discretionary income strikes the correct balance. It would clearly be a misuse of public funds to ignore significant income available in a system intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day needs.
We also believe that to ignore capital deriving from personal injury payments without any restriction would not necessarily encourage long-term provision. Clearly, if the person involved needs long-term care at any level, the sensible thing is to encourage provision to be made for the money to be available in the longer term through a trust. If that was not done, it would be administratively very difficult to separate that capital from any other capital that the person may hold.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 120 seek to allow any income or savings which can be directly attributable to meeting needs associated with a disability to be ignored in assessing entitlement to JSA.
We recognise that people with disabilities can incur increased living costs, which is why the disability premiums which currently apply in income support will be carried forward into income-based JSA. These are paid in recognition of the extra living expenses such as extra heating, special diets, more expensive travel, or laundry costs which people with disabilities can face. In addition, a higher £15 earnings disregard will be payable in recognition of the extra expenses that disabled people might incur while working.
However, income-based JSA, like income support, is intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. It is only right that, in a system based on means, any income which is available to meet a person's needs should be taken into account, and that those with substantial capital resources should also have their benefit affected by this. As now, capital and most income other than earnings and occupational pensions will not affect entitlement to contributory JSA.
There will, nevertheless, be some exceptions. We intend, when calculating entitlement to benefit, to continue to disregard fully certain social security

1043
benefits paid to disabled people, whether to the claimant or his partner. This will include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance, which are intended to meet the special needs of disabled people. The first £10 a week of any charitable payment or war disablement pension will also be disregarded.
We also recognise the value which schemes such as Motability—which was mentioned by my noble friend—provide for disabled people. The rules that allow a vehicle to be provided in return for the assignment of any mobility component which a person receives will continue and, in this case, no capital or income will fall to be taken into account for the purpose of JSA.
I appreciate that perhaps I have given my noble friend a mixed bag of replies, some of which I am sure he will find more than satisfactory. I suspect that on the first amendment he may still not agree with me, but I hope that he understands my argument about equity with other people. I hope also that he accepts my assurances on the various points that I have tried to cover in my response to him.
Lord Swinfen: I feel that the whole Committee will be delighted to know that the noble Earl did not damage himself because we benefit very much from what he has to say, particularly the historical anecdotes that he brings out. He may be slightly wrong, as my noble friend suggests, on what happens within our own lifetime but on his own subject no one can better him.
As my noble friend said, he has produced a mixed bag of welcome and possibly not so welcome information in his reply. I shall digest it at greater leisure when I have had an opportunity to read it in the Official Report. It means that I may come back on one or two points at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Income and capital: income-based jobseeker's allowance]:
Baroness Hoilis of Heigham Baroness Hoilis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 9, line 9, at end insert ("of not less than £10,000").
The noble Baroness said: This argument is somewhat similar in nature to the earlier one about earnings disregard. This amendment applies to capital disregards. The £3,000 threshold of capital disregard was fixed in April 1988. If that were up-rated, it would now be worth £4,179 with RPI. The sum of £8,000 determined in 1990 would now be worth £10,119 if RPI-ed. Both figures would be considerably higher if, instead, they were earnings related.
This is a probing amendment. We want to tease out the Government's presumed objection to it. At the moment, one may retain capital up to £3,000. Thereafter, as a couple, capital between £3,000 and £8,000 is taken into account and a notional income attributed to it which is docked off—offset—against
1044
income support. Above that capital limit of £8,000, one is not entitled to income support and, therefore, presumably, JSA in its entirety.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make some obvious points. First, as we said earlier we accept and the Minister accepts the principle of up-rating in benefits generally. If that is not done, the worth of the benefit is cut by inflation each and every year. In other words, inflation should not be allowed to eat away at the intention of Parliament when it first fixed the limit. Not to index it is to cut it. Therefore, in all fairness, all such disregards should be RPI-ed each and every year, consistent with the benefits; otherwise, it is worth less and, by knock-on consequences, so is the benefit. Therefore, we undermine Parliament's original intention.
The second point is particular to the capital rules and does not apply to earnings. The Government have fixed a very high notional income attached to those savings. One pound a week in benefit is deducted for every £250 of savings one has over £3,000. I believe I am right in saying that that means that there is assumed to be a notional income from one's capital of over 20 per cent. Many of us would like to have a real income from capital of 20 per cent. Yet the most poor of our society who do not have generous savings and who are on income support are, quite notionally, assumed to have capital giving an income flow of 20 per cent. That bears no relation to the real world we inhabit. That is lost altogether if one has savings over £8,000. Therefore, the second reason for up-rating is to defer the point at which that very severe notional flow of income from savings takes people off benefit.
The third concern is that JSA, the contributory benefit in which savings are not taken into account, is being cut from 12 months to six months. Therefore the effect of that very high penal rate on savings is coming into account six months earlier than under present UB rules and savings will be eaten into much earlier. The consequence is that the Government are sending out to people on income support and those who might be eligible for JSA, a signal that it is not worth saving because if one does those savings are sharply penalised, not just in terms of the notional income one is supposedly drawing from it, but at the cut-off point at which one loses JSA. There is an even greater sense of unfairness when those savings have come not just by putting money away weekly into a policy or whatever, but when they have been awarded, say, as compensation for injury or redundancy. In other words, a payment made for a wrong done is then to be treated not as compensation, but as income on which one is expected to live.
I doubt whether there is anyone in this Committee who disagrees with the view that it is a great mistake, in terms of wider social policy, to wipe out people's modest savings. For example, savings in a rural area allow one to acquire a battered car in the absence of public transport with which to jobseek, acquire and then hold down a job. If those savings are wiped out then one does not have a chance of re-entering the world of work in sparsely populated rural areas. It is those savings which, as one approaches old age, will float one

1045
off the need for some charity hand-outs and allow one to buy the aids and adaptations which perhaps allow one to remain in the community rather than needing to go into Community Care. It is those savings, modest though they are, which will prevent an unemployed person from slipping into debt on water and fuel bills. All the evidence from the CABs shows that something like half of all unemployed people slip into debt from which it is almost impossible for many of them to recover. It is equally important for those who are losing their jobs in their later 50s and have virtually to exhaust their savings before they can get JSA. They are also only a year or two off retirement with no cushion whatever to take with them.
We are all living in an increasingly insecure society. Is it really wise for government to make it silly to save? That is what the Government's Jobseekers Bill does. If they were minded to indicate that they will accept these amendments the Bill will be a little less perverse than it is at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: When assessing the nominal or supposed income from capital, in what is that capital supposed to have been invested to produce the income suggested by the noble Baroness?
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches we support these amendments. I shall not attempt to gild the lily, but I now have authority to say something which I would like the Committee to know. If we are in a position to do so, we shall repeal this Bill. If the electorate should choose to put us in partnership with another party we shall endeavour to persuade that party, whichever it may be, that it should join in repealing this Bill. I hope that the Opposition will be able to join in this commitment.
I watched the Minister's face. I can see him reaching for his calculator, but before he does so, can he try to get it right this time? We need to know what this provision is going to cost. The figure in the financial memorandum is £270 million of which £220 million is attributable to the cutback in unemployment benefit. On that costing I have been entirely persuaded by the very able speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, at Second Reading. I hope that she is as successful with that speech at persuading the Treasury people in her own party, as she has been in persuading me. In the other part of the Bill there is a saving envisaged of £50 million. I am sure that the Minister understands why it will carry much greater expenses. The assumption that repealing it would be cost-neutral is very pessimistic, but it is the assumption on which I am acting because I am sometimes pessimistic as regards financial matters. I hope that we can get rid of the legislation at some time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That was an interesting intervention. Clearly, the Liberal Democrat Party have been deep in conclave for a day, a week or an hour—I am not entirely sure—to come to the conclusion that, given the opportunity, they will repeal this Bill. However, that should not stop us in our tracks from carrying on with consideration of the Bill.
1046
I never hear figures of costs from the Opposition concerning their amendments. They sometimes counter what I suggest may be the cost and give the Committee the impression that somehow or other their proposals will be "costless". I do not believe that that was the experience of the Treasury Ministers during the time of the last Labour Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure if I offend the rules of the Committee by intervening, but I am sure that Members of the Committee will at least temporarily forgive me. I merely looked to the resources which the Minister has in the Box. There is usually nine, 10 or 11 staff and sometimes we have one or two and sometimes none. That may be why the Minister has better resources to carry out the costings than we have. Of course, we hope to enjoy those benefits ourselves in the not too distant future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that the noble Baroness was going to suggest that I should sack the officials and in that way save money, but she was not quite making that jump. It will be an interesting policy if her party puts that forward as one way in which to find some of the additional money which the amendments before us promise.
I return to the amendment. As I said earlier, income-based JSA is intended to help unemployed people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. It is only right that in any system based on need, capital or income which is available, including that of the claimant's family, is not ignored. In the case of a family, benefit is paid for the whole family, taking into account the resources and needs of the family as a whole.
Income-based jobseeker's allowance will closely model income support, as I have said on a number of occasions. The upper limit will be £8,000 and the lower will be £3,000. We believe that it is necessary to preserve alignments of benefits in order to avoid anomalies and inequities and to preserve incentives.
The present lower and upper capital limits strike a balance which allows people to maintain a cushion of savings to fall back on while expecting those with capital to use some of their resources towards their own living expenses before they have recourse to public funds. Part of that is called "saving for a rainy day". If the rainy day comes—and this is obviously one of them—it is right that the taxpayer should expect people to use their umbrella at least to some extent before calls are made on the taxpayers' resources. The capital limits are part and parcel of the fabric of the system and are designed to ensure that people who have some resources make some use of them before they can ask the taxpayer—the general community—to pay an income-related benefit.
Turning to the amendment which seeks to raise the capital limits to a lower limit of £5,000 and an upper limit of £10,000, the cost of implementing such provisions for income support alone—that is, for all income support, not only for unemployment benefit; I do not think that such provisions could be applied to one narrow group—would be £55 million.

1047
At the risk of hearing another story about calculators, my calculator has already totalled over £100 million of Opposition spending this afternoon—and it is only 4.40 p.m. I shudder to think what my calculator might show at the end of the day. As I said, it already shows well over £100 million in Opposition pledges. I am quite content for the Labour Party to promise such additional expenditure on these and other matters, but that bill will suddenly become very large and unsustainable when added to the current very large social security bill.
I believe that increasing the capital limits would represent poor targeting and add an extra £55 million to the social security budget. Our priority has been to maintain benefit levels and improve help for claimants who are most in need rather than increasing disregards for those who have some resources of their own.
I shall leave answers to the questions about "steps" until we reach Amendment No. 118, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That is the time to discuss whether there should or should not be steps between the limits of £3,000 and £8,000. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I can see that she does not agree with my proposals. Perhaps that keeps some clear blue water—or should it be clear red water?—between our parties. It is evident that the Labour Party has not lost its taste for spending public money.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before we move away from Amendment No. 116, perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 117, which is linked with it and which relates to subsection (2). That subsection indicates that where a person is claiming an income-based jobseeker's allowance, it is not only his or her capital but that of,
"any member of that family",
which is to be taken into account. I can think of almost nothing more likely to break up families than that provision.
Let us imagine a family which includes a young person over the age of 18 who is living at home. Members of the Committee will know that that situation is much more common nowadays in our world of insecure employment than was the case 30 or 40 years ago. If that young person is unable to get a job and claims an income-based jobseeker's allowance, he or she will be told at the employment office that, unfortunately, they cannot receive the allowance because their mother has savings of more than the prescribed limit. The young person is therefore put into direct conflict with his or her mother, so far as I can tell, on the question of whether the mother will agree to her savings being reduced in order to allow the young person to claim the jobseeker's allowance. If I understand it correctly—perhaps I do not —that seems an absolutely lethal piece of wording and very strange from a Government who have repeatedly said that they believe in sustaining families and the unity of family life.
Perhaps I may give one more example, If a person seeks an income-based jobseeker's allowance within the category that has been so extensively discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and is incapacitated—but not so incapacitated as to receive an incapacity benefit— and is therefore unable to get either a job or a jobseeker's
1048
allowance, nobody else in the family can get that either although, by definition, that family is likely to be in considerable need. Given that it is impossible to put a figure on the costs of breaking up a family—as the Minister knows, they are extremely high, as are the costs when young people live alone—I wonder whether the Minister will give further consideration to this point because unless my interpretation of the subsection is wrong, it seems an incredibly unwise piece of wording.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, are too young to remember that under the National Assistance Act that is precisely what happened. Children and young people left home because of the way in which income was calculated on the basis of the family.
Lord Swinfen: On the same point, how is the claimant (who may not know the capital of other members of his family) going to tell officials about that? If he is unable to tell the officials, will that count against him and will he be refused any allowances? Or will the officials have power to look into the papers and records of relatives of a claimant—relatives from whom the claimant may be estranged? What would be the position of a claimant whose father had recently married for a second time and who did not get on well with his stepmother, which is quite often the case? A whole raft of unpleasant family situations could result.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Members of the Committee seem to think that they have stumbled on something new. In fact, it has been a long-standing principle that the capital of family members is taken into account. I have pointed out that the way in which the benefit is calculated includes a claimant's family. If the claimant is a man, the capital of his spouse and children is taken into account because if he is claiming for himself he is claiming for them all. As I said, it has been a long-standing principle from which I do not dissent. It is only right that the capital of a family should be taken into account. I hope that that answers the question. The principle has existed for a long time. It is really the other half of the principle that when a claimant makes a claim he is doing so also for those members of the family who are dependent on him.
On the more general—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will give way—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can carry on. It would be easier to answer the questions that have been put to me and then give way to the noble Baroness.
The position regarding young people is that the provisions do not apply if the claimant is over 19 and is still living at home, but they do apply to someone under 19.
Lord McCarthy: Would it be honest to say that the Minister would have completely answered our amendment if we were seeking to abolish the capital disregard? Most of the Minister's speech dealt with the fact that the capital disregard cannot be abolished. The

1049
noble Lord would substantially have answered our amendment if we were asking for a major increase in the real value of the capital disregard. However, what my noble friend Lady Hollis has been saying is that the capital disregard should be indexed. What is the Government's policy on that? The Minister was asked clearly several times whether the Government believe in indexing such provisions. Some are indexed; others are not. What is the Government's policy on indexing? Are we now seeing a policy of creeping non-indexation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government review, but do not necessarily index, a number of payments in the social security field. We decide whether that is a sensible use of additional resources and whether it is the right way to target resources. I thought that I made the Government's position perfectly clear. We do not believe that increasing the limits is the best way to target resources in the system. We do not agree with the Opposition's view—I appreciate that the amendment is a bit of a cockshy—that the limits should be increased to £5,000 and £10,000. I have explained the cost of doing that and I have explained the Government's position. It is perfectly clear. I presume that the Opposition are pledging another £55 million of expenditure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to make two points in reply. First, it is simply not clear to this side of the Committee that the Bill will save the public money. The Minister may well have been trying to calculate the cost every time we propose an amendment. Clearly, the new instruction from a desperate Tory Central Office is to try to put putative costs on probing amendments. Well, the Minister can enjoy himself, but the substance of our criticism of the Bill is that it is perverse. We suspect that the result of the Bill will be to put a married, or other, partner of somebody who is entitled to JSA out of work because of the effect of means testing. Nothing I have heard in this place or the other place has persuaded me that the Bill is not perverse at its very core. By introducing means testing early one pulls more people out of work early, therefore increasing the dependence of benefit of those people early and thus the taxpayers' bill increases.
So it is no use the Minister lecturing us on the cost of the Bill to taxpayers when its very core will increase public expenditure, and while in the process the Government have allowed employers so to push down wages through the abolition of wages councils that the cost of in-work benefits for those in work has doubled to the cost of us all. It ill becomes the Government to lecture us about costs when their social security policies are so perverse that they have added to the social security bill. We should be delighted to explore them in future, and start producing our own calculations of the cost to taxpayers at the cost of unemployed people.
My second point is specific to the issue of capital. The Minister made the point—I accept it—that savings are for a rainy day. "This is a rainy day", he says, "let them spend their savings". The difference is that under the Government's proposal almost all of those savings would be wiped out by the person having to live on them. The result is that they are then not available for
1050
those other contingencies which are entirely honourable, decent and respectable, such as acquiring some means of transport to seek a job. Those savings are not available for such items because those items are never covered by the social security system; in other words, if the social security system wipes out savings, which it should not do, those savings are not available for what they should be used for: that is, transport, and the means to enable one to remain in one's own home.
Finally, the Minister claimed that this expenditure puts clear blue water between us. I shall tell him what clear blue water it puts between us: it signals that the Government are so perverse and so shortsighted in their quest for short-term savings, at the expense of long-term savings, that they will penalise the savings and thrift of ordinary, hard working people who, very often through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. After six months, instead of 12, their thrift, their savings, are being penalised by the Government. If that is the clear blue water between us, I take pride in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may take one moment of the Committee's time.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: You cannot. The noble Baroness has asked leave to withdraw the amendment. That must be put to the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Trade disputes]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert ("and

(c) the person was eligible to vote in the ballot that authorised the stoppage of work,").

The noble Lord said: I want to speak also to Amendment No. 122 and support Amendment No. 121 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall not move Amendment No. 123 which has been grouped with these amendments.
I was going to say that this is a probing amendment, except that a probing amendment is one—I take it— upon which one will be wondering to oneself what the Government are going to say. I rather think that I know what the Government will say, but I do not see how the Government can say that these amendments will cost any additional money because they represent what we are doing now and what the Government propose to stop doing. In fact, they will probably cost less and less money as we go on—as the Government believe— because they are all about strikes. They relate to what one might receive or might not receive if one goes on strike or becomes involved in strikes. We all know that the Government believe that strikes will disappear if, in fact, they have not already gone. So we do not have to worry about money.
The clause relates to disqualifications for benefit if one is involved in a trade dispute. We are trying to say that there has been a change in established practice, and Amendment No. 120A deals with the situation where the Government appear to be changing the position from

1051
what it was previously, when those involved in a trade dispute were of course not given unemployment benefit. Of course not, and we do not suggest that they should be. But if people were not directly interested in the outcome of the dispute they could appeal and perhaps provide themselves with some benefit.
In our amendment we say that that is a long-winded and much too wide a way of trying to decide whether people are involved in the dispute, and that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that if people do not vote in a strike ballot it may be assumed that they are not directly involved in the strike. After all, the Government have now made it essential in law, as a result of Section 227 of the 1992 Consolidation Act, that anyone who is involved in a strike—anyone who may be called out on strike—will have to vote in the strike ballot to validate that strike.
Therefore, we have here a simple, straightforward way of bringing into effect what the intention, I should have thought, always was: to distinguish between those who are involved in a dispute and so may benefit from a dispute and are not entitled to unemployment benefit and those who may be laid off as a consequence of the dispute—laid off accidentally or directly, if the employer decides to discipline the strikers for any one of a range of reasons. We believe that there is a straightforward and easy way, without going through an appeal procedure, to distinguish between those who are involved directly and those who are not involved directly in a dispute, which is what appears on the face of the amendment.
Amendment No. 122 seeks to deal with a situation which changes the status quo, because we have changed to a weekly what I still call unemployment benefit and which the Government call a jobseeker's allowance. In the past anyone involved in a strike was not eligible for benefit for the days of the strike, but because we have here an allowance which works for a week, if one is on strike for a day one loses a week's benefit even if for the rest of the week when one is laid off one is not on strike. Nevertheless, because we have created a weekly benefit we say that the striker has to have a weekly disallowance or deduction.
We consider that most of those things are reasonable and that the Government should have an answer. It is in the hope that they have an answer, that I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I have sympathy with Amendment No. 120A. In Clause 11(1) it is already conceded that where there is a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at a person's place of work, that person is not disentitled to jobseeker's allowance if he can prove that he has no direct interest in the dispute. On the face of it, it seems reasonable to suggest, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has done, that where a person is not eligible to vote in the strike ballot which is needed to validate or make legal the stoppage, he should equally not be disentitled to the allowance. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that amendment.
1052
As regards Amendment No. 122, which is grouped with Amendment No. 120A, it is surely the case that when a person is involved in a trade dispute that person is disentitled to unemployment benefit only in respect of the day or days on which he was involved in it. I too should like to know why the jobseeker's allowance should be treated differently in that respect.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 120A. It has been a feature of benefit legislation since the National Insurance Act 1911 that benefit is not payable to people who are not employed because of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the premises at which they are employed. Since 1911 the merits or otherwise of the issues involved in the dispute have been immaterial with regard to benefit entitlement, and the adjudication authorities are not required to take a view on those issues.
Amendment No. 120A would largely have the effect of distinguishing, for benefit purposes, between union members who are eligible to vote in a strike ballot and non-union members who are not. I appreciate that non-union members might find themselves unemployed as a result of a stoppage of work which they did not want to happen. The same could of course be said of those union members who voted against the stoppage. What should happen in relation to a strike not called by a union? This is really irrelevant. The crucial question must continue to be whether they are directly interested in the outcome of the dispute. That has been defined widely by the courts and it may be that that is what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seeks to redefine. For example, if the dispute is over pay, and if any pay rise won by the union would go to union and non-union members alike, then the non-union members are directly interested. It is a long-standing principle of benefit legislation that those who are directly interested in the outcome of a dispute should not be entitled to benefit, and I see no reason to depart from that principle.
I turn now to Amendment No. 122. We are all agreed that people who are unemployed because of involvement in a trade dispute at their place of work should not be entitled to benefit. The original National Insurance Act of 1911—which goes back to a Liberal Government— contained a provision to this effect. Equally, people who withdraw their labour in sympathy with a dispute elsewhere should not be entitled to benefit, and there has been specific provision to that effect since 1986. Clause 11 carries forward these provisions.
The clause is designed to operate in as straightforward a way as possible. If a person is involved in a dispute, or has come out in sympathy with one for any one day in a week, he is not entitled to JSA for the whole of the week. The reasons for any continuing unemployment in the rest of the week do not need to be considered.
In fact, the circumstances in which this amendment would make a practical difference would be very rare. The only circumstances I can conceive of where the amendments would make a difference would be where the jobseeker had been genuinely unemployed for six days and then taken up employment on the seventh, only immediately to come out on strike in furtherance of someone else's trade dispute. Alternatively, he might withdraw his labour for one day in the same

1053
circumstances, then immediately be made redundant and be unemployed for the rest of the week. Both are extremely unlikely scenarios.
The amendments would mean that where a week consists of six days of genuine unemployment and one day of unemployment due to a trade dispute, we had to pay six-sevenths of the weekly amount of JSA. That may be an unlikely situation, but I do not consider it an acceptable one. JSA is designed to be a weekly benefit, and any change to this would unnecessarily complicate its operation.
For the avoidance of doubt, it may be helpful to explain that anyone who is disentitled under Clause 11 will continue to be able to claim income support on behalf of any dependants he has.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that they are probing amendments and I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have given him he will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to deal briefly with Amendment No. 121 to which I did not speak in order to save the time of the Committee. However, it refers to the specific case of a health and safety dispute where there may be very strong grounds for a dispute and where disentitlement to benefit seems to be a rather harsh penalty.
Lord Inglewood: I am delighted to be able to deal with that amendment because I do not believe that there is any fundamental problem in relation to it.
Amendment No. 121 suggests that that long-standing principle should not apply to disputes concerning health and safety. Of course I fully agree that health and safety are of paramount importance, but giving people what would in effect be a form of subsidy for strikes over health and safety would be an unfortunate and, as I hope to explain, unnecessary development.
Employees are, of course, free to take industrial action, as defined in Clause 31, over any issue, including health and safety; but the decision is theirs and there is no reason to afford them any special protection or privilege if they do so. Taking such action may well be only one among a number of options, including bringing their concerns to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive. Employees already have important rights in that area. For example, the Health and Safety Executive can issue prohibition orders to stop work at unsafe workplace sites.
I should stress that if employees leave the workplace and there is a stoppage of work because of a belief that to remain would expose them to serious and imminent danger that does not, in itself, constitute taking part in industrial action or being involved in a trade dispute and the Clause 11 disentitlement would not apply. Benefit is payable in temporary adverse conditions which stop work, even though the workers may still be employed. If there is a doubt about whether employees were acting in furtherance of a trade dispute, or whether they simply left the premises because of serious and imminent danger, the adjudication authorities would decide the
1054
facts in the usual way. But benefit should not be payable when cessation of work was a move in a trade dispute, whether or not health and safety was involved.
Earl Russell: Since the Minister has spoken at such length to Amendment No. 121, perhaps I may be allowed a few words in reply.
I am aware of the provisions of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act. The word in that legislation which does not occur in this amendment is "imminent". There are situations in which a belief is held sincerely, rightly or wrongly, that a process is, in its nature, unsafe. My amendment provides only for benefit to be available while the matter is under sub judice. It seems to me that where there is a genuine disagreement about whether a process is safe, it is perfectly proper for that to be resolved in the courts. A refusal of benefit in those circumstances may risk interfering with the rule of law.
Lord Inglewood: In the context of the circumstances which the noble Earl describes, where there is a serious situation which may lead to an immediate walkout—and I use the words in a lay sense—from the place of work, the appropriate action is to involve immediately the Health and Safety Executive. That is an extremely effective and immediate way in which to determine the nature of a problem about which there may be anxiety in the workplace.
Secondly, as I explained, if the employees are faced with a situation which they believe is so serious as to merit them having to depart from the place of work, that is outside the definition of a trade dispute and therefore falls within the circumstances that I described in my earlier comments.
Lord Rochester: Would it not be a good idea to clarify the situation by making an addition to the Bill and thus make that point absolutely clear?
Lord Inglewood: As I explained, when one has knowledge of the circumstances, the matter is clear. We can certainly reconsider the matter. However, the basic principle involved is one which is actually straightforward. I suspect that many of the problems about dealing with such legislation lie in the fact that there is so much of it in general. Putting such a provision on the face of the Bill would not necessarily mean that anyone will immediately be much the wiser. I hope that Members of the Committee understand my explanation.
Lord McCarthy: I believe that it is time to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 121, not having been moved has nevertheless been answered and further discussed. There is much that I could say about it, but I shall not. It is for those who did not move it to decide what they wish to do.
One of the points I was trying to make with Amendment No. 120A—and one which the Minister does not appear to have engaged in—is whether or not we accept that the direct interest definition is adequate and works well. Some say that it works, while others say that it does not. However, you have to appeal to approve it. You have to say that you have no direct

1055
interest. What we are looking for is something, so to speak, factually beyond debate. It is self-evident that a worker did not vote. There is no argument about it: either he voted or he did not. I agree that such a provision may benefit non-unionists; indeed, they are clear straightaway. But I am in favour of that. We are asking for something which is clear and unambiguous. You either vote or you do not. It is a matter of fact. It is not necessary to go somewhere to explain that you were not directly involved and either convince or fail to convince someone. That is the difference.
I turn now to Amendment No. 122. It is rather like the argument about the very small baby. The Minister kept saying that there are not many such people; indeed, Mrs. Widdecombe said the same thing in another place. However, there are a few people like that. There will be a few people who did not go on strike for a week and there will be people who were laid off for a week. Just because the Government, for their own convenience, changed the way that unemployment benefit is calculated so that it is calculated on a weekly basis, it does not seem to us fair to make the unemployed person or the person who was laid off suffer for what is an administrative convenience of the Government. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 123 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Effect on other claimants]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 13 [Severe hardship]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 130 and 133 and in support of Amendment No. 126. The amendments deal with Clause 13 of the Bill which is specific to young people under the age of 18 and the circumstances under which severe hardship allowance will be paid.
On Clause 13 hangs whether or not a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 will receive any allowance. Yet, as presently worded, the legislation does not even carry the normal elements of equity, balance or fairness. It puts the Secretary of State or, in reality, the employment officer, in a position of tremendous power as regards a young person who may well view such power as omnipotent. That young person is probably inexperienced, with no previous knowledge of claiming welfare benefit.
I wish to address the amendments individually. As presently worded, the clause gives the Secretary of State discretion to decide whether the circumstances are mandatory. Amendment No. 125 would make it a mandatory requirement in the circumstances set out in the Bill. It would provide a safety net for young,
1056
potentially vulnerable people in that age group who fall between the criteria of the Bill and who are not entitled either to welfare provision by way of jobseeker's allowance or to income support. Alternatively, to put it another way, as young people they could find themselves destitute, and for what? They have committed no offence. They will be penalised merely because of their age.
Even with the wording of the proposed amendment, the clause would not be an open-ended or risky arrangement for the Secretary of State. All the protections for the taxpayer and the welfare system are there in Clauses 2 and 3. And, indeed, Clause 4 is quite specific concerning the period of time for which benefit will be paid. I suggest that there is also the protection for the Secretary of State in that even "training" and "other assistance" will have such meaning as will be prescribed in the regulations which we have not yet seen.
What circumstances are likely to arise which would signify that a young person in that age group is suffering from severe hardship and should therefore qualify for payment? A young person would have no wage coming in, no benefit, and would probably be registered for training; but he or she may be one of the 15,600 young people who, last October, were waiting for the careers service to give them a course to attend. Alternatively, he may be among the 1,000 young people who have been waiting for over six months. Can Members of the Committee imagine that situation? Such young people are registered for a training course, but there is no course available. That group may well fall within the category under discussion.
Moreover, such young people may well be homeless and, for a whole host of all too-tragic reasons, not living at home. There may be family problems. There may even be unemployment in the family which has driven them to leave home. Indeed, there are many problems that young people of that age group can face. They are all hallmarks of a desperate situation for an extremely vulnerable and immature group. We read all too often of the experiences of those young people.
I should like to express my support for Amendment No. 126, but I turn now to Amendments Nos. 127 and 130 which are similar. They, in turn, would give a young person covered by Clause 13 the right of appeal—not the right of benefit, but the right of appeal—should the Secretary of State refuse to give a direction that this provision applies in his or her circumstances. I remind Members of the Committee that it is a part of the Bill that seeks to recognise that severe hardship can and does apply to that group of young people. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that the right to appeal should be placed within the clause.
We must remember that the young people seeking help under the clause will probably be doing so for the first time. They will be suffering hardship; it is probably their first encounter with the welfare system. They are highly likely to have no knowledge at all of the rules, their individual requirements and their responsibilities and even less likely, according to statistics I have been given, to have advice or representation when they make their applications.
In reality, those young people will be on their own. Yet similar evidence shows that awards of severe hardship allowance are more likely to be granted where a young person does have help, advice and representation. Without the right of appeal, the only real alternative is judicial review. That is difficult enough at the best of times. It is hard to imagine a 16 to 18 year-old even knowing about judicial review let alone having the wherewithal to take such proceedings. And, of course, if they did so, they would not qualify for severe hardship payment. That is an avenue that young people would not even know is open to them and, in reality, it is not.
We are dealing with key and serious issues. If the Secretary of State refuses or revokes the application there is no right of appeal, which means that the individual is penniless with no income. Indeed, there is no provision at all in that respect. I suggest that that makes it even more important for young people to have the right of appeal. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no government of whatever colour would wish to see such vulnerable, young people in a position which probably makes them destitute, penniless and even more at risk of the ills of society without an appeals system. I hope that the Minister will indicate acceptance of the amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 133. This will require regard to be given to the welfare of a young person in the event of a potential reduction in benefit. It is not intended to protect that small group of people who are always dragged up as examples to show that people are trying to get the most out of the benefit system or are trying to get out of their responsibilities as regards work and training. This amendment is aimed at the vast majority of young people who are genuine, who do not know the rules, who have difficulties and who need protection from the worst elements within society. I suggest that it is a reasonable and responsible amendment. It will ensure that an officer dealing with a young person will be required to have regard to the welfare of that young person in arriving at a decision. I suggest that therein lies the reasonableness of this amendment as regards the age group we are discussing.
I will give the Committee two examples of real young people. The first example is that of a 16 year-old with learning difficulties. Wirral youth services reported that that young person had left training due to a lack of support for his learning disability and difficulties with other trainees. He was homeless and estranged from his family because of his disability. He was also cut off from benefit. I do not believe—I cannot believe—that that is the intention of this Bill. If it is, the Bill has the potential to create a group of young people who have nowhere to go. We know where those young people all too often end up. We see them in our streets day after day.
The second example is of a young woman who was trying to come to terms with her life after having been subjected to abuse at home. She was forced to leave home and, as a result of her home difficulties and the emotional problems she experienced, she found it
1058
difficult to sustain her training place. I ask the Minister whether it is appropriate that in that case benefit should be cut. I am sure that cannot be the intention.
Generally there is a problem with young people who must juggle their appointments with housing services, if they are homeless, and their appointments with other services while trying to maintain attendance on a training course, as this Bill will require. I believe that problems may arise which were not foreseen when the Bill was drafted. If they were, the Bill is substantially deficient in this regard. The young people affected by this clause are acknowledged through their receipt of benefit to be facing severe hardship. Many are estranged from their families. Some are care leavers. A young person leaving care is entitled to only eight weeks' allowance before having to prove that he is in severe hardship. I suggest that that eight weeks' period is all too often inadequate to give that person the time to find somewhere to live, to find a training place and to establish a settled way of life. To reduce such a person's benefits because, supposedly, he cannot show just cause, is wrong, punitive and is certainly counter-productive as regards trying to help young people in the manner in which I would hope this Bill is intended to do. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I break my silence to support the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on these amendments. I am particularly interested in Amendments Nos. 125 and 127 which concern the right of appeal. I am sure that we have a special responsibility to our young people which the Government share. They can show that they share this responsibility if they will give to young people, if they want it, the right of appeal. That is the first point.
My second point concerns the amendment to Clause 14, Amendment No. 133, which states that,
"regard shall be had to the welfare of the young person concerned".
These people are quite properly called "young" people. They are not yet adults. They need that special regard. I shall say no more than that both the right of appeal and the special regard are necessary for these people who may otherwise, I regret, fall out with their families. Without the resources which they should properly receive from the state, they may enter undesirable activity, either criminal activity or begging. I strongly urge the Government to give these amendments serious consideration and, if possible, to accept them.
Earl Russell: I wish to support all the amendments in this group and to speak most particularly to Amendment No. 126 which is in my name. But, first, I wish to say a word about Amendment No. 133. That has slightly different language. It refers to our old friend, the "welfare" of the child, from the Children Act 1989. The use of that language in this place draws attention to the fact that we are seeing a real problem here as regards the age of majority. Some Members of the Committee may remember the case of the anorexic 16 year-old who was given forcible treatment. There was a great legal problem over whether she was to be treated as a child or an adult. That indicates a general weakness in the law of majority as it relates to 16 and 17 year-olds. In this case, when it comes to claiming benefit, they are

1059
children. When it comes to their parents asking for a child premium on their income support for them, then they are adults. It seems that they are getting the worst of both worlds here. I would like to see the law of majority looked at in a much more general way as it relates to 16 and 17 year-olds. In fact I think it is an appropriate subject for the attention of the Law Commission.
Amendment No. 126 deals with the burden of proof in cases of severe hardship. This is really quite frightening. I believe that when people are deprived of the right to means-tested benefits, which, after all, must presume that their means were pretty low in the first place, it ought to be a presumption that if those benefits are taken away, they will be in severe hardship. I admit there may be cases—one or two of which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to last Tuesday—where that might not be so, but it is perfectly fair to say that in those cases the burden of proof should rest on the Secretary of State. The treatment of this subject has suffered a certain amount of spill-over from the assumption made in adult cases that the single person can never be in hardship. I think for that reason there has been a good deal more resistance to the idea of hardship than there might otherwise have been. But if you are sleeping on it, the ground feels just as hard whether you are single or whether you are not.
Baroness Seear: It is harder.
Earl Russell: Perhaps my noble friend has a point there but I think that it will still be pretty hard in either case. I also think that a lot of the trouble that 16 and 17 year-olds have suffered as regards severe hardship comes from the complicated procedure in claiming. The Minister is new to this subject. I would ask him, therefore, to look at the speech made by his noble friend Lord Mottistone on 24th July 1991 which put this so well that I have never succeeded, or even attempted, to improve on it. I admit that the procedure is a little simpler than it was, but it is still difficult.
Speed is of the essence here. If you have been thrown out of your home because you have quarrelled with your mother's new boyfriend, which is a very common cause of this problem, you need food instantly. You are in a state of shock. You cannot go anywhere without money. Therefore, speed is important. Presumption in favour of the young person could help, because it would make speed easier to achieve.
Such a presumption would also make the questioning which inevitably occurs a little easier than it sometimes is. If you have dealt with a 16 year-old in a state of shock you recognise that the word "volatile" is appropriate. It is a word which is derived from the handling of explosives, and that is not necessarily an inappropriate analogy. Some of the questioning to discover the circumstances in which people have been thrown out by their parents tends to produce that volatile effect. There are cases—I have some details with me but I shall not quote them—in which the young person rushes off before the questioning is finished. That sense of hostility creates a problem that directs people into an
1060
occupation which pushes them into the underclass. Once you get there it is very difficult to get out. Then a whole life is wasted.
An assumption that the burden of proof rested on the Secretary of State would generate a much more appropriate atmosphere for the whole process. It would create some of the soothing effect that is needed. Then the officers, who I admit have to ask questions so long as the law remains roughly as it is, might stand a much better chance of finding out the truth.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate on a difficult subject involving a small number of youngsters who, the Government accept (by the legislation we already have in place), can be in a vulnerable position or in hardship.
I cannot accept all that has been said about the position of young people in the benefit system. As this is the first of a number of amendments relating to this issue, it may help if I begin my contribution by outlining how the present system works.
The Government believe that young people are better off in education, training and employment. I believe that that is common ground. In support of that view, we guarantee every 16 and 17 year-old who wants one a suitable youth training place with a wage or a training allowance. We shall spend £669 million on youth training and modern apprenticeships this year in England alone. That is a significant investment in the future of our young people and in the nation's economy. To give the Committee some idea of the number of people involved, in January this year 287,100 young people were in training in Great Britain.
The existence of that guarantee means that there is no reason why young people need to be unemployed. We do not wish to encourage dependence on benefit at such an early age, and 16 and 17 year-olds are therefore in general not entitled to claim benefits as unemployed people.
We recognise, of course, that there may always be those who, for one reason or another, face particular difficulties. We therefore make special provision for those circumstances. Certain young people, such as lone parents or those with a disability, are at present eligible, and will in future be eligible, to claim income support without having to be available for work. Certain others, such as those who are married and have a child, will be able to claim JSA on the same basis as an adult. In addition, all other 16 and 17 year-olds who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if it appears to the Secretary of State that they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. That is the purpose of this clause, which carries forward existing arrangements.
In summary, we want to encourage young people to get the best possible start in the labour market by making the most of the opportunities available, while balancing that against the need to provide support for those who are genuinely vulnerable.
When assessing whether a 16 or 17 year-old is at risk of sever hardship a wide range of personal circumstances is considered, including health, vulnerability and the threat of homelessness; a point that may help the noble

1061
Earl. A degree of discretion is necessary to allow all the relevant circumstances of a particular case to be taken into account. Some of those circumstances cannot be foreseen and discretion is essential to ensure that only those 16 and 17 year-olds who need help through JSA receive it.
Decisions on severe hardship are made by specially trained officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Every youngster who applies for a severe hardship payment is interviewed by a specially trained officer who will seek information to decide whether the young person is at risk of severe hardship. If the officer feels that a severe hardship direction is not appropriate, that has to be confirmed by a central unit with considerable expertise in this area.
A degree of discretion is necessary to allow all the relevant circumstances of a particular case to be taken into account. Some of those circumstances cannot be foreseen and discretion is essential to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds who apply are dealt with properly and fairly. Given that these youngsters only claim JSA in exceptional circumstances, we believe that it is right that there should be such discretion as to whether or not to issue a direction.
Amendment No. 125 would limit the Secretary of State's discretion. The exercise of that discretion is more correctly defined by the use of "may" in the Bill rather than "shall", as suggested. It appears to me that the substitution proposed would be seen as reducing that discretion. Indeed, I suspect that that is the aim of the noble Baroness in moving the amendment. I do not believe that that would be sensible.
Amendment No. 126 seeks to switch the burden of proof with regard to severe hardship. At present the burden is on the claimant to satisfy the Secretary of State that he will suffer severe hardship. Under the amendment, the burden would be on the Secretary of State to show why severe hardship would not arise.
I have already explained that every 16 and 17 year-old who applies for a severe hardship payment is interviewed by a specially trained officer who will seek the necessary information to allow him to decide whether the young person is at risk of severe hardship. As I said, if the officer feels that a severe hardship direction is not appropriate, the decision has to be authorised by a central unit.
I believe that that represents a clear and fair system for young people. It is entirely reasonable to ask young people who want to claim benefit because of risk of severe hardship to provide satisfactory evidence that they are in fact at risk. It is not sensible to require the Secretary of State to prove a case in which it is the young person who has the necessary information. Consequently, I cannot accept that amendment.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 127 and 130 is to provide a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal against any decision by the Secretary of State not to make a direction or to revoke one. Severe hardship is an exceptional route into JSA. Consequently, we do not propose to change the present approach, that these arrangements should not include the right of appeal to the SSAT against the Secretary of State's decision. I should, however, like to emphasise the safeguards which are built into the system.
1062
I have already mentioned some of those safeguards. There is the specially trained officer who interviews the 16 or 17 year-old and seeks information in order to help him decide whether the young person is indeed at risk of severe hardship. Those specially trained officers are very well aware of the potential difficulties which young people may suffer. Indeed, a direction enabling the young person to claim income support is issued in 85 per cent. of cases at present. In 1994 there were 132,535 claims for severe hardship payments. A large number of them were repeat claims. Of those claims, 112,241 were successful, representing 85 per cent. Therefore, clearly the officers responsible treat the matter very seriously and carefully.
I am sorry to repeat the point but I wish to reinforce it. I believe that the system in place meets many of the fears of Members on the Benches opposite. If the officer feels that a direction is not appropriate, that has to be authorised by a central unit which itself has considerable expertise in this area. If the young person feels that all the circumstances have not properly been taken into account, he can ask for his case to be considered again.
As with other amendments, I have to say that we do not propose to change the present approach. These are exceptional arrangements to deal with this small—but difficult to deal with—category of young people. We believe that the arrangements should not include an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to a social security appeal tribunal.
The purpose of Amendment No. 133 is to provide that the welfare of 16 or 17 year-olds will be taken into account before any reduction in the rate of JSA under Clause 14 is applied.
I have already explained the safeguards that we built into the system. I shall add that it is our intention to make the rules clear to 16 to 17 year-olds when they draw up their jobseeker's agreement which, as my honourable friend the Minister for Employment in another place explained, will be specially tailored for young people. That, together with the safeguards that I have described, will ensure that no young person should unwittingly fall foul of the system. However, if people deliberately abuse the system it is right that there should be some penalty.
Accepting that those young people to whom we refer are vulnerable, it means that we must, as I believe that we do, continue to treat them carefully and sympathetically. But we cannot allow them to use their vulnerability and the exceptions made for them as an excuse—that is what we are talking about—for not taking up training places; or, if training places are taken up, not sticking with them. I do not believe that we should remove all sanctions from this group. Without the sanctions, we would omit what for a tiny minority is the only safeguard we have against them simply refusing every means of help.
Those youngsters in such a group, almost above all other groups of young people, need a training place and encouragement to stick with it if they are ever to break out of what must obviously be their very difficult circumstances. I do not believe that we do them any service by removing the modest penalty which is allowed to be imposed in the system—a 40 per cent. reduction for two weeks—for failure either to take up places after two choices, or to abandon places in training schemes after two attempts.

1063
I believe that it is an important issue. I hope that I have not taken too long in seeking to explain the safeguards we already have in the system that we operate at present. I appreciate that some noble Lords opposite would like to go further. Some noble Lords opposite would like the situation where people receive benefit even if they do not meet any of the qualifying conditions. I believe that that would a serious mistake.
This is a serious issue. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. The noble Earl has an amendment on this issue. I understand that there is strong feeling on the matter. The noble Baroness may decide to divide the Comittee. In that case, I hope that my noble friends are convinced by my argument that we are doing the best we can by those young people, and, if a Division is called, that they will join me in the Lobby.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Will the Minister clarify an important point in his speech that I raised, perhaps somewhat out of turn, at an earlier stage in the debate? At the heart of the programme is the desire to get these youngsters into training. I am entirely in agreement with that. We want to see far more people trained. Those youngsters who do not have a job need to obtain training rather than be pushed into, or sometimes to accept because they prefer it, a job which has no future, thereby perpetuating the situation.
The Minister made the point that at the centre of the proposal is the fact that there are training places and that those young people are expected to take training places. That is fine provided that the training place is right for the young person. Will the Minister explain how the appropriate training is worked out? From the point of view of the taxpayer, the trainer and the trainee, it is not satisfactory if those young persons are put into the wrong training. What is done to make sure that it is the right training?
Perhaps I may make this subsidiary point. In an earlier programme which a previous Government ran—I cannot remember whether Conservative or Labour—where there was appropriate training but it was not in the locality in which the young person lived it was possible to make provision for the young person identified for such training to be moved, and to have the expenses of the move paid in order that he obtain the proper training.
What steps are being taken to ensure that the training is right? It is a waste of money and time from everyone's point of view to give people the wrong training. Money spent on giving the right advice and instruction, finding training in the right place, and investing enough money to ensure that that training is undertaken is very worthwhile. Will the Minister explain where we stand on this? How is it done?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to explain to the noble Baroness how we set about ensuring that the training is reasonable.
The safeguards in the system on training start first with the careers service, which decides whether or not a training place is suitable for the young person. Under
1064
arrangements made under the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, the service is bound to provide impartial guidance to young people. The careers service will not offer the young person a training place unless it meets his or her needs, circumstances and ability. It will take into account anything which might limit the type of training which the young person might accept, including the young person's preference, aptitude, level of approved qualifications at which he aims, and the duration, proximity and availability of the training.
With JSA we are introducing a new system of internal review which may take place before a direction is revoked—I mentioned that earlier in my main contribution—on the ground that the young person has refused a suitable training place. The young person will be given the opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the Employment Service before a direction is revoked. The service will consider all the circumstances carefully. If it finds in a young person's favour, the direction will not be revoked.
If the young person is in a training place and is not happy with his training, he has a number of courses of action. He can raise the matter with his training provider. I accept that it rather depends upon the complaint; he or she might not be the appropriate person with whom to raise the matter in some circumstances. But the young person can raise the matter with the TEC which arranges for the provision; or he can go to the careers service and raise his concerns about the training course and its suitability. Again, the matter will be looked into very carefully indeed. If it is found that there is a problem and that the course is not suitable, another place will be sought for the young person.
On the question of the quality of training, like everything else in life the quality of training will vary. There will be very good, mediocre and not so good. But that is the same with all education—dare I say? We want to make sure that none of it is downright bad and the TECs are obliged through their contracts to implement quality assurance arrangements according to standards set by the Secretary of State. Those standards (I am sorry to introduce some quite technical jargon) are known as the TEC Quality Assurance: Supplier Management requirements—needless to say, reduced to TQASMs, which apply uniformly to all TECs. TECs are also obliged, through their contracts, to take any action required as a result of the quality audits that they undertake on training. If they find problems they are obliged to take action.
I hope that those assurances will help the noble Baroness to understand that we take seriously the need to ensure that the training course is of a reasonable quality, and that it matches the needs, aptitude, and so on, of the youngster involved.
Baroness Seear: I thank the Minister. However, I raised the point that under previous administrations it was possible for provisions to be made for a youngster, if there was no appropriate training in the area in which

1065
he lived, to move in order to take the appropriate training elsewhere. Is it still possible for that to be considered?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure, I need to check. I would not like to give an answer off the top of my head, in case I was wrong. I am receiving indications that the answer is that the provisions still exist and a youngster in the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness could receive help if he had to move.
Earl Russell: I recognise the Minister's sincerity. It is a pity that he believes everything he reads in the papers and that the only papers he reads emanate from the Department of Social Security. He is new to the subject; we have been here for quite a long while. Has he read the MORI report published by his own department in 1991? Has he read any of the series of reports from the Coalition on Young People and Social Security? Has he read the report of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, or of Church Action on Poverty, or the series of reports from the citizens advice bureaux?
If what the Minister says is correct, why is it that he has been totally unable to make it clear to anyone else who has studied the subject? The number of expert reports we have had on it has become so large that I gave up counting a long time ago. The half century was up well before I stopped.
The Minister says that we are merely dealing with a small number of people. That is a real example of only believing the figures which come from his department. There are problems with the figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, knows. He has been extremely helpful in trying to do something about it. This year's returns from the careers service show that 6 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds are unemployed and the whereabouts and occupations of 6 per cent. are unknown. That makes a total of 12 per cent. I ask the Minister whether he has read the report published by South Glamorgan TEC on 16 and 17 year-olds not in education, training or employment. The figure varied from 16 per cent. to 23 per cent. of the age group. That is not a small number.
The Minister says that they would be better off in education, training or employment. So they would. The question is whether we are prepared to give them the choice between starvation and crime, if they are not.
It is also a question of whether training is available for them. The amount that the Government have spent on youth training has fallen. The number of places has fallen. At present, there are 15,000 16 and 17 year-olds waiting for a place. It is no good saying that they should be in training if the training is not there. It is no good if the training is in a place they cannot reach. Since the Government have not uprated the youth training allowance since 1988, it is no good telling youngsters to take training if they cannot live on the allowance.
The Minister mentioned discretion. He may exercise discretion but I am reminded of the remark of Edward Hyde in another place that it sounds as if discretion were but one remove from rage or fury. You cannot eat discretion.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I listened with interest to the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 125.
1066
I was astonished at some of his comments. It is no comfort to the small number of people—even if it is a very small number—that they are outside the provisions of the Bill. Those people are just as important as a large number. We cannot ignore and forget them. That brings social problems.
We all agree that young people are better off in training. There is no doubt about that. But what about the 15,500 people who were not in training last October and not in training today? What about the 1,000 who have been waiting for a training scheme for over six months and are still waiting? It is no use the Minister continually telling us about the amount spent by the Government on training. Alongside that and balancing it is the fact that throughout the United Kingdom the budget has been considerably reduced. There is no doubt about that.
Perhaps we may examine what the amendment would mean. The clause states:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that a person has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18, is not entitled to a jobseeker's allowance or to income support, and is registered for training but is not being provided with any training or other assistance "—
all of which will be defined in regulations, the content of which we do not yet know—
"and that severe hardship will result to him unless a jobseeker's allowance is paid to him, the Secretary of State may direct".
I suggest that in the prescribed circumstances defined in the Bill the Secretary of State shall direct, as suggested in the amendment. That is quite straightforward.
The Minister mentioned appeals and said, "Well, there were 132,000 last year and 85 per cent., 112,000, were allowed. Therefore, you should have total confidence in our system." I do not have confidence that there is such a person as a perfect employment officer, any more than there is a perfect human being who cannot make mistakes. We all make mistakes. We have seen that when appeals take place under various aspects of the law. The Child Support Agency is a good example of no appeal system being provided.
Perhaps we may consider the converse argument. If the number of applicants who succeed is so high and those turned down so few, then the number of appeals under the system which we provide will equally be few. It will be no great burden on the system. However, it will give the opportunity for a second look at a vulnerable group in our society. That is why the amendment has been put down—on the basis of equity, fairness and compassion for that small group.
The Minister says that it is not necessary to have regard for the welfare of a young person because that is exactly what the officer will do. If officers will do that in the course of their work, why not put it on the face of the Bill as a responsibility? "Have trust in me" does not always work. We have reams of statistics to prove it.
The Minister generously said that it is clear that we feel strongly about the aspects affecting young people on this side of the Committee. We do. On that basis, I seek the opinion of the Committee and commend Amendment No. 125.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 125) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brookes, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Eatwell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hardinge, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Addison, V.

Davidson, V.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Downshire, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Flather, B.

Barnard, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Beloff, L.

Gage, V.

Blaker, L.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Goschen, V.

Boardman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Harlech, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burnham, L.

Hogg, B.

Cadman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ironside, L.

Carnock, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Killearn, L.

Chesham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Leigh, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lindsay, E.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas, L.

Lyell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

1068

McConnell, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Prior, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Quinton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Rawlings, B.

Marlesford, L.

Renton, L.

Melville, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mersey, V.

Seccombe, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sharples, B.

Milverton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stockton, E.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Swansea, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Vivian, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wakeham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall apply to any person who is pregnant and registered for Youth Training.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment relates to the list of exemptions and changes in the system of severe hardship payments. There are a lot of flaws in this system. I should like to speak to the group of amendments that addresses them. The first directs that a person who is pregnant and registered for youth training and is without other means of support shall be found to be suffering from severe hardship.
I hope that the Minister will not waste the Committee's time by telling us that women who are pregnant up to (I believe) the 29th week in these calculations are normally perfectly capable of work. That is common ground. The question is whether employers or training providers are prepared to employ them. A great many people have a great deal of prejudice against employing or training pregnant women. There was one case in Cardiff of a man who refused to employ a pregnant woman on the ground that it was unnatural. I do rather wonder how he got here! A great many of the cases of really acute hardship that we come across are the result of pregnancy. I remember one in particular of a woman living on the £15 a week bridging allowance who had only one skirt that she was capable of wearing. She had no chance at all of buying another. It must have been extremely difficult to keep it clean.
The next amendment deals with people who have completed a course of youth training or have lost a place through no fault of their own; for example through a training provider going bankrupt. I regret to say that that does happen. It is one of the central difficulties of the reliance on the supposedly guaranteed youth training place that, according to MORI, the median length of a youth training place is three months and the period of time for which a guarantee is supposed to be provided is two years. Clearly, there is a considerable shortfall.

1069
We very often come across people who have completed a youth training course and are waiting for another, and for whom there is not one available; all that they can get is the ridiculous £15 bridging allowance which has not been up-rated since 1988. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was Minister, said he thought that MORI had got it wrong, and that the figure of three months for the median length of youth training courses was not correct. I put down a Question to ask what the correct figure was. I got the answer that the Government did not know. If they do not know, how can they deny the claim of MORI that is based upon a piece of research commissioned by the Government themselves?
The third of these exception cases concerns people who want to enlist in the Armed Forces. Any country that wishes to defend itself must have armed forces, and in any country where there are armed forces it must be possible to enlist in them. It is clear enough that somebody who wishes to enlist in the Armed Forces does not seek a life of unemployment and benefit dependency. It is an occupation in which a good deal of training and hard work occur. In particular, the Army recruits by means of a limited series of enlistment days on which people can join up. If one wants to enlist one has to wait for the next enlistment day. A great many of the gross cases of hardship that have arisen have concerned people who have put themselves down to enlist in the Army and the period of time before the next enlistment day has been too short for them to undertake a youth training course. No trainer will take them on because they cannot complete the course. Their claim to severe hardship payment has not been recognised. I admit that the situation is better than it used to be. However, the last case in this category of which I heard emerged last week, and I was distressed to know that it was still going on. If the Government were to accept this amendment, which they could well do within the basic principles of their policy, this situation could never arise again. Amendment No. 127C is about as mild an amendment as can be. If the Government do not accept it, they will need a very good reason. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support this group of amendments, and in particular the first one. It is absolutely essential that a pregnant woman is able to feed herself properly for her own health and that of her unborn child. If she is not able to feed herself properly she may create problems for herself and perhaps greater health problems for the rest of the child's life, which may last 70, 80 or 90 years. The pure economics are such that from the point of view of the public purse it is an investment to pay a severe hardship allowance to the mother so as to make a considerably greater saving to the National Health Service for the rest of the child's life.
I also support Amendment No. 127C too. Quite obviously, the Army needs a certain number of people at each intake for the training programme to be viable. Therefore, until they are ready to start a new intake they cannot enlist an individual. Obviously, that individual is
1070
desperate to get a particular job. He will probably have been accepted and is only biding his time until he is allowed to start work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of the three amendments. His purpose in tabling the first amendment is to make special provision in JSA for pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds. I can well understand his concerns. I welcome this opportunity to look at the issue and explain to your Lordships what will happen under our proposals. The amendment before the Committee seeks to provide that, if a pregnant 16 or 17 year-old who is registered for youth training makes a claim for JSA, a direction to allow her to claim JSA should automatically be made without it being necessary for her to prove that there is a risk of severe hardship. I understand the thinking behind such a proposal, but I believe that it is inappropriate to make such special condition.
Perhaps I may explain the position to your Lordships so that the arguments on both sides are understood. I appreciate that the noble Earl does not need my explanation because he knows about it. Pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds are able to claim income support for the period starting 11 weeks before the expected week of confinement, and ending seven weeks after the confinement, without having to be registered for training or having to be available for, or actively seeking, employment. That is provided for in income support regulations and will continue to be so after the introduction of JSA. Outside that period, in which they may claim income support, pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds—just like other 16 and 17 year-olds—will be able to claim if they will otherwise suffer severe hardship. To do that, they must apply for a direction under Clause 13. Indeed, that direction will be issued if it appears to the Secretary of State that the conditions discussed earlier in Clause 13(1) are satisfied. The guidance in the severe hardship directions makes clear that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. This guidance, which is publicly available, deals specifically with pregnancy. It states that, if a young person is pregnant, a note of any health problems should be taken and consideration given as to whether they may increase the risk of severe hardship. I hope that that helps to explain why I cannot accept Amendment No. 127A.
I deal next with Amendment No. 127B. By this amendment the noble Earl seeks to make special provision for 16 and 17 year-olds whose training places come to an end, or who have left such a place with good cause. I understand the point that is made. I hope that I can offer him some reassurance that young people in that position will not be left stranded. If such a young person re-registers for training and is at risk of severe hardship, he will be able to seek a direction. If he is not at risk of severe hardship, a direction will not be issued. I do not believe that it would be right to make special provision for this group of young people. Of course, when they come back on to the scheme, the training providers and the careers service will take immediate steps to try to find them another training scheme in order to replace the one that they have had to leave for whatever reason. The noble Earl mentioned the

1071
bankruptcy of the training provider as one such case. Clearly, that would be a case where efforts would be made immediately to try to find the young person another training course. But that young person would not fall to be paid money unless a direction was given on the ground that he was at risk of severe hardship.
I deal next with Amendment No. 127C. I do not believe that there is any disagreement between us on the importance of the Armed Forces and the career opportunities that they provide to many young people. This amendment seeks to provide that a direction should automatically be made for those youngsters who are waiting for an enlistment date to join the Armed Forces without it being necessary for them to prove that there is a risk of severe hardship. I confirm that it is our intention to ensure that that happens. I believe that this amendment was tabled only on Tuesday. As with many matters dealing with social security legislation, it is slightly more complicated than it may appear at first sight. Arrangements for recruitment to the Armed Forces are undergoing some changes at present. This is an example of why it is appropriate to deal with matters in secondary legislation. The complexity and variability of this issue is quite considerable. I appreciate the noble Earl's concern and that he will want to have a more detailed assurance once I have had the chance to consider the points that he has made and looked into the issue. Perhaps if he is content to leave this amendment at that, I shall reflect on what he says and take the opportunity to look into what I understand is a complicated issue and see whether there is indeed a problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that to many of us, and certainly to me, the previous amendment seems to be the only sensible one of the lot.
Earl Russell: I am grateful for that small mercy. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for an even smaller but very genuine mercy. It is the first chink of light that I have seen on any amendment on this subject since 1988 and I must welcome it. I had been just about to say that I began to suspect that if I tabled an amendment to the effect that the Government should go into the next election with an advantage of 100 seats, the Government would resist it, and not for the right reasons either.
I asked the Minister not to repeat the argument about pregnant women being able to take training. That is not because I was not prepared to listen to it—I have listened to that argument at least 20 times already and not one syllable has changed in it since 1988, so it does indeed need updating—but because it was not relevant to the point at issue. The point at issue is not whether pregnant women can take youth training. Most of them can do so and, if they can get it, good luck to them. The point is that it is very difficult for them to get it. Before I decide what to do about this amendment, I should like to ask the Minister at least to address that point. I have been trying to get the Government to address that
1072
question since we debated the Social Security Bill of 1989. Before leaving the subject, I should like to have my first answer.
In the case of the person whose youth training course is complete, I do not understand why the Minister does not think that severe hardship is automatic. If you have no income other than a £15 bridging allowance, I simply do not understand how it is possible not to be experiencing severe hardship. I am in genuine difficulty with that and again I should like to be helped.
A young person may be on his own. Once again I must remind the Minister that in the MORI sample 65 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds who were living away from home were doing so because their parents had thrown them out and they could not go back if they wanted. In the Centrepoint sample taken last year, that was true of 86 per cent. of the sample. If you are in that situation, you are completely self-supporting. You have no work and no benefit. It is no good just waiting awhile to see whether something will turn up in a few weeks. Most of us cannot live for several weeks without eating. So there has to be something available instantly and it can only be available instantly if it is a right. Again, I should be very grateful if that argument could be addressed before I decide what to do with the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl raises a number of issues. I hope that I noted them all in order to cover them in my reply. Sometimes it is difficult to give more than a general answer. Neither of us has the young person concerned in front of him to look at all the circumstances. First of all, I do not have any evidence one way or the other on the noble Earl's question about the difficulty of a young woman obtaining youth training if she is pregnant, but I shall certainly look into that matter.
Earl Russell: Can the Minister guarantee to have that information before we discuss this matter in the next session?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, I cannot guarantee that. I suspect that it is the kind of information that is quite difficult to obtain. The reason why a youngster is not on youth training may not be the kind of information that is collected centrally. We may know the numbers of those who are having trouble getting on to a youth training scheme but not the reasons. By the law of nature, a youngster in that situation who cannot get a youth training scheme may very quickly fall out of the necessity to look for one, having arrived at 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement. It might be a fairly moving target, but I shall look at it—or look at the point about the resources that the young person may have.
As I have introduced some hilarity into the proceedings, perhaps I may move on from that to the point that the young person may have a partner who is still with her, as opposed to a partner who is not with her any more. That person may well have an income and, I accept, may well be on JSA, but may also be on a training scheme and so on. The youngster may have supportive parents—but the noble Earl rather snookered

1073
me on that argument by narrowing it down even further to people who were living away from home because of a threat of physical and sexual abuse at home.
There are circumstances in which 16 year-olds are in those conditions, and those would be some of the factors that could be taken into account in deciding whether they are entitled to jobseeker's allowance.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I did not say that this was necessarily a matter of physical or sexual abuse. I said that this was a category of people whose parents had thrown them out. I did not go into the reasons. There are a great variety of them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Earl wants to move on, I think one has to look into the reasons why the youngster is not at home. Those are the kind of matters that are taken into account. But there has to be some reason why they are living away from home—either they are estranged from their parents, in physical or moral danger or perhaps there is a risk to their physical or mental health. There are a number of factors. It is difficult to say without an almost dry-run case in front of us and the people who make those decisions. I like to think that I am good at some things, though the Committee may not think so. But the one thing that I know I am not is a trained employment officer; someone trained in the kind of work that is undertaken in order to make such judgments. I do my best to try to illustrate the factors that such an officer takes into account and I have indicated some of them. On that judgment he decides whether or not the youngster in front of him is in the category of either vulnerable or in severe hardship. It is on that basis that the awards outside the periods pre- and post- the confinement are given.
I do not think that I can be any more helpful to the noble Earl than I have tried to be.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to elucidate the matter a little more. As I understand it, the amendment refers to a 16 or 17 year-old who is pregnant. Almost by definition that refers to a single female. The Minister shakes his head but I cannot imagine that men get pregnant - but never mind that.
The Minister raised the point of such a person having a partner. I can see the logic of that point of view. But, we have been talking about a single person who is pregnant. The Government have raised the issue of a partner. Am I to understand that if a 16 or 17 year-old pregnant person has a partner who is also 16 or 17 years old and unemployed, the social security system will provide for the couple?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I was expressing surprise about the fact that the person pregnant would be female. But clearly there are three or four categories that may come into play thereafter; I can think of three. The person may be alone because the father has simply pushed off or is not known or whatever it may be; the persons may be a couple who are not married; or they may be married. So there are at least three broad categories which would be encompassed. In a way it depends in the second and third case on the partner and what the partner's
1074
eligibility is for benefit or, indeed, if the partner or husband—to cover both of them—is in work. That will depend on their age. They may well be in a training scheme. I do not think I can go any further than that. I have explained what I meant by the different circumstances in which the young person might find herself.
If I may revert to the question about training, I am advised that we certainly do not have any knowledge or information about any particular difficulties. A research programme is currently being conducted on early leavers which is due to produce its results in the summer. It may be that it will throw up some information on the points made by the noble Earl. I shall try to put to the back of my mind the noble Earl's interest—I do not mean to say "to the back of my mind" but "in the back of my mind—in this issue so that I can draw his attention to yet another publication on this subject.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister, especially for that concluding remark. I shall touch briefly on the point about partners. A number of them have partners. The commonest category is other 16 and 17 year-olds in exactly the same difficulties. If the Minister really wanted to do one thing to encourage family life it might be by recognising a hardship category of cohabiting or married fathers—two 16 and 17 year-olds living together with a child. That really could be constructive.
I do not think that we shall get much further tonight. However, before we have our return fixture at the next stage, perhaps I may ask the Minister to try to familiarise himself with some of the immense wealth of learning and research on this subject which is done outside the walls of the Department of Social Security, especially on the point of difficulty of pregnant women getting training. Perhaps he will consult the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which has a very large number of such cases. Perhaps he will also remember that if the Government really do change their policy on this point it will do a great deal to ease the pressure on parliamentary time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127B to 127E not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 27, after ("failed") insert ("without good cause").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 129. This is a straightforward amendment. It provides that the question of good cause must be considered before a young person loses his severe hardship allowance for failing to pursue an opportunity for training or employment or rejecting an offer of assistance, training or employment. The principle of good cause is not a new one to this Bill. It is specifically provided for in Clause 14. We welcome that. We think it is appropriate that it should appear in Clause 13, which is a much more punitive clause affecting young people than Clause 14.
The amendment is modest. It would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consider a 16 or 17 year-old's reasons for failing to pursue an opportunity for training or employment or other assistance, or rejecting such an offer, before a direction is revoked. In another place the Minister of State for Employment has, I gather, already announced a new review procedure to be followed before the Secretary of State will revoke a direction. If that is to take place, we shall welcome it. We also think it assists us in asking the Committee to support the amendment.
It will be a general requirement. It will allow a dialogue with the young person and allow him or her to establish where there has been good cause. For instance, a young person in the South-East obtained a training place on youth training through a training agency. The young person had arthritis but was nevertheless employed as a shop assistant, which involved standing up all day from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week. She was required to meet her own travelling expenses, which is normal. That left her with £3.50 a week for all her necessities. The training agency understandably acknowledged that the placement was not suitable. The system worked—"good cause" under this amendment. The amendment seeks to introduce into Clause 13 that good cause will be taken into account just as it is in Clause 14. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In rising to support the amendments I wish to ask one or two questions. As the Minister will recognise, the position is one in which a direction may be revoked if the young person concerned decides not to take up an offer of training or employment or rejects such an offer. I wish to pursue with the Minister the issue of good cause.
The Secretary of State—probably in most cases in the person of an official in his department—when he comes to consider the revocation of a direction will have before him certain facts. Without the addition of the words "with good cause" those facts will be limited to the actual physical facts of the case. He will not be required to produce the arguments that may arise—they may be in good faith arguments—for having rejected or refused to pursue an opportunity of employment or of training.
I would be less concerned about this failure to mention the words "good cause" if we had not at an earlier stage, when we were talking about availability for work and actively seeking work, failed to amend the Bill to list a series of requirements which apply to people with specific positions —for example, people with religious objections to working on Sunday, people with learning difficulties, people with difficulties with the language, and so on. What that means is that in the case of a 16 to 18 year-old whose severe hardship allowance may be removed he or she will not have the safeguard that would have been provided by that earlier amendment.
In that case "with good cause" must in effect stand for apparently those reasonable conditions that the Minister in responding agreed were reasonable conditions—ones to be taken seriously into account. But they would not even appear on the Minister's desk as something he or she had to bear in mind unless the words "with good cause" applied. Speaking as someone who, like Ministers
1076
themselves, has been involved in the discretionary judgment that has to be made, the absence of the words "with good cause" simply means that the arguments that might be legitimately advanced by the claimant will not need to be advanced when that case is put in the Minister's Red Box for final judgment.
I wish to make one other point and then, because of the shortage of time, I shall not pursue the matter further. As my noble friend Lady Seear pointed out, the truth of the matter is that some training schemes do not deserve those words. I say that having spent some part of last year looking at training schemes in my capacity as chairman of my party's employment commission. Some training places are simply a joke. Some are excellent. What we are doing at the moment is removing that best known of all market responses to a bad product—the right to be able to withdraw one's custom. That is a very troubling thing to do. The phrase "without good cause" will allow young claimants to be able to urge that they had good reason to refuse the product. Of all things, a Conservative government should sustain the customer's right to say, "I am sorry, the product was no good".
Lord Swinfen: In my own mind I am quite certain that the Government have the intention that no direction should be revoked without good cause. That is the intention. However, those words should be on the face of the Bill. To take the example which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, gave of a young person with arthritis having to give up her training place, the vast majority of people in this country do not understand that some severe arthritic conditions can afflict very young people. Most of us consider arthritis to be a disease of the elderly. However, it can strike, sometimes in its most severe form, among the young of this sort of age. In my work with the John Grooms Association for Disabled People I have come across it on more than one occasion.
A young, inexperienced person dealing with a young teenager who came back to say that they had given up their job, would not understand about arthritis and could recommend revocation of the direction without really going into the facts. This provision is a safeguard. In my own mind I know that it is intended to be there, but it should be written into the Bill. Without it, the ordinary person in the street will not have any opportunity to come hack and say that their case had not been properly dealt with.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The purpose of these amendments is to provide that a direction may be revoked under Clause 13(3) (b) only if the 16 or 17 year-old has refused or failed to pursue training without good cause. Young people wishing to claim JSA on severe hardship grounds, because that is what we are talking about, must register with the careers service. As a result, most will be quickly offered and accept suitable training or other assistance. If a 16 or 17 year-old receiving JSA on severe hardship grounds fails to take up such opportunities and thereby fails to remove himself from severe hardship, then it is surely right that his direction should be revoked. That is why Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke the direction if it appears to him that the 16 or 17 year-old has failed to pursue or has rejected training places or other assistance.

1077
I recognise that some Members of the Committee are concerned that this system must be operated fairly. I can assure your Lordships that young people will be able to reject unsuitable opportunities. As my honourable friend the Minister for Employment made clear on more than one occasion in another place, the Government recognise that young people may not always be completely clear as to their vocational needs and aspirations. That is why we intend that those newly covered by the Government's youth training guarantee should be allowed, without penalty, to turn down one offer of training or to leave one training place early for any reason whatsoever. The regulations will provide that if they turn down two suitable training places or leave two such places early, or a combination of those, they will receive a penalty of a 40 per cent. reduction in the personal rate of JSA for two weeks. I addressed the reasons why I think that is correct policy in my original speech on this clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that the distinction between his reply and the wording on the face of the Bill was "suitable training". Is the Minister saying that he would be prepared to sponsor or accept an amendment from us as regards subsection (3)(b)? It would then read:
"it appears to him that the person concerned—

(i) has failed to pursue an opportunity of obtaining suitable training or other assistance … or

(ii) has rejected an offer of suitable training or other assistance".

Will the Minister accept such an amendment? Those were the words the Minister used which seem to take up the point made by his noble friend Lord Swinfen of "good cause" or "suitability". As the Minister used that word to gloss the words of the Bill, will he either accept our amendment or move one of his own to make the matter clear? In that event some of our fears will be allayed.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is a good try by the noble Baroness. If she re-reads my superior speech this afternoon she will be wanting me to qualify the training with a lot of other adjectives or whatever they are. I am sorry, I am concentrating on the Bill and not on the grammar. She will want a number of other descriptions of the training. I have already mentioned "suitable".
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I referred to the quality controls which are in the Bill. I believe that we could go on at length on this matter, but perhaps I may try to continue my remarks. I hope to be able to persuade the Committee that we do not need any description such as "without good cause" or "suitable" or "reasonable" or any other words like that. As I said, if a youngster receives a penalty and subsequently returns to the guarantee, a reduction will be applied on each occasion when a suitable training place is turned down or one such place left early. That will apply similarly to other returners to guarantee.
Perhaps I may now turn to the safeguards in the system. I have already mentioned some of them. There is a risk that we repeat ourselves quite a good deal. I make no apology because I appreciate that this is a serious point and I should try seriously to address it.
1078
The careers service will decide whether or not a training place is suitable for that young person. They are bound, under arrangements which I described earlier, to provide impartial guidance to young people. They will not offer a young person a training place unless it meets his or her needs, circumstances or ability. They will take into account anything else which might limit the type of training which the young person can accept, including their preferences, aptitude, level of approved qualification and so on.
In the example which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, read out, I must say that the Machiavelli in me watched carefully to see if she read out the last sentence and I acknowledge that indeed she did. The example that she gave was a justifiably worrying example. The last sentence of the example states that the training agency acknowledged that the placement was not suitable. I hope that that is the kind of conclusion to which we shall come.
Baroness Seear: The Minister gives the impression that the people making these judgments are perfect. I am most certainly not perfect and even the noble Lord is not. On occasions we all make mistakes. It is because we do that people must have safeguards in being able to say that there was just cause why what has been decided is wrong. It is against the minority decisions which are wrongly made that we need to have this safeguard. They may simply not have taken into account some aspect of the personality or physique of the youngster concerned when the judgment was made. The judgment may be wrong. The law has to recognise that we can all get it wrong.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister told the Committee how the system will operate and what the process is likely to be. In my view he has not answered the amendment. He has given no reason to the Committee why the words "without good cause" should not appear on the face of the Bill. There are many Acts of Parliament where similar words appear. They have gone through this House and the other place. I can see no reason why these words cannot be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hate to tell the Committee, but I am only halfway through my observations on this matter. If my noble friend will give me the opportunity and then examine the point I am putting in its entirety, he may see why those words are not necessary. Dare I say to the noble Baroness who made the first intervention that the same applies to her? However, I should like to put on record some of the safeguards that exist because I appreciate that we are not perfect. I certainly would not like to test in the Division Lobbies the question of whether I was perfect. Indeed, I might not even manage to get all of my noble friends into the same Lobby as myself!
I should now like to return to the amendment, having picked up the point about the CAB. That was an example of where it was acknowledged that the person was wrongly placed. I hope that that will happen rarely, but I accept that, in the real world, it will happen on occasions. With JSA, we are introducing a new system of internal review which may take place before a direction is revoked on the ground that the young person has refused a suitable training place. The young person will be given the opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the

1079
Employment Service before a direction is revoked. The service will consider all the circumstances of the case carefully. If it finds in the young person's favour, the direction will not be revoked.
If a young person is in a training place and is not happy with his trainer—I have already mentioned this, but will have to do so again because I have been asked about it—a number of courses of action are open to him. He can raise the question with his training provider. I concede, however, that the nature of his complaint may be such that the training provider may not be the best person with whom to do that. Failing that, the young person can raise the matter with the TEC which is, after all, responsible for ensuring that the places are provided, or he can raise the matter with the careers service. Again, the facts of the case will have to be looked into carefully and, if appropriate, the young person will have to be found another place.
But if the young person does leave a training place early and feels that he had good cause for doing so, he will be able to put his side of the case to the Employment Service. The circumstances of the case will be re-examined, and, where good cause is established, a certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State and a copy given to the young person. If he reapplies for severe hardship under JSA, the certificate will entitle him to receive the full amount. If, however, he does not have a certificate when he applies for a new direction, he will receive the reduced amount of benefit. But if he later gets a certificate, he can apply for a review, under the Social Security Administration Act, in order to get back the amount of the reduction already made.
I believe that, taken together, the youth training guarantee, backed up by the sanctions, safeguards and protections that I have described now and previously, represent a fair and balanced package of measures for young people. Therefore, I do not believe that we need to put any qualifying words into the Bill—whether they be those suggested by the noble Baroness in this amendment or any others that she may prefer from the contributions that have been made. I do not think that we need to add such words to the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee and the noble Baroness will accept that there are safeguards, that they work, and that we do not need to put other words on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before we conclude this debate, perhaps I may ask the Minister about one point. He has dealt to some extent with some of our concerns, particularly with regard to the consideration that will be given by the Employment Service to objections raised by a young person about the hardship allowance being withdrawn.
However, I was interested that the Minister did not deal with the point that I tried to make about a difference in approach if the case goes all the way up to the Minister. If the words "without good cause" are included, the Minister will be obliged to consider whether there has been good reason for a young person leaving a training place. The Minister's arguments have essentially been that the Employment Service is judge and jury in its own cause. Many of us have great respect for the Employment Service—I certainly do—but to be judge and jury in one's own cause does not meet the point that was made by my
1080
noble friend Lady Seear about the minority of cases which are not satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, I have to join the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in saying that it is beyond my comprehension why those words cannot be included in the Bill if the provisions are as thorough and objective as the Minster has just argued.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad that we have now listened to the whole of the Minister's answer, but if he will not put something into the Bill, could he take something out of it or even think about doing so? What is so worrying about the Minister's refusal to include such provisions in the Bill is that the Bill states that such directions may be given,
"If it appears to the Secretary of State"
or to a member of the Employment Service. I repeat that the words are "If it appears". The Minister says that many other things, such as suitability, will be taken into account, but that is below the line because the Bill simply states:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State".
Cannot we have something slightly more reassuring for the applicant than those words?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure that I understand that point. I cannot think of who else it must appear to other than the person having to make the decision. In most cases, that will be the official at the Department of Employment.
Lord McCarthy: The point is that it should appear to someone else besides the Minister. Most importantly, it should appear fair to the applicant. That is why the conditions and circumstances which the Minister actually takes into account should appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The circumstances will be many and varied and I do not think that they can all appear on the face of the Bill because the question will depend rather upon the applicant and his aptitude, ability and circumstances. The case that we were considering related to disability and arthritis. However, it is also a question of the kind of training place that is provided. A place that is suitable for one person may not be suitable for another. It is a question of judgment.
I think that the system contains checks and balances that will ensure that in the limited number of circumstances where a young person refuses or leaves not only the first place but also a second place, he or she will have received plenty of warning about the consequences of that action. Indeed, I not only "think" that; I am confident that that will be the case. If the issue goes right up to ministerial level, Minsters will have to take all the same judgments into account as the officer, but will take a second look at the case. I am not sure to what extent things will get that far, but that sometimes happens through ministerial correspondence, as the noble Baroness will recall. One does have an opportunity to look at cases and one can ask questions if one is unhappy.

1081
However, I think that that is a slightly different argument from the question of whether we need to add those words to the Bill. I am honestly not going to go to the stake on whether we need some qualifying words—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Don't be too keen! I shall reflect on the points that have been made about this issue—
Baroness Seear: Does not the Minister understand and accept that, with the best will in the world, the employment officer may misinterpret what he is being told? He may think, "This chap is just belly-aching" whereas the chap had appendicitis. A perfectly legitimate mistake would be made, but in the end it could be shown that the claimant had appendicitis and therefore had "good cause".
Earl Russell: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him whether he has ever heard of what is known in the London Borough of Brent as "Stonebridge syndrome"? Stonebridge is the most undesirable council estate in Brent. If Brent does not want to house somebody it offers him a place in Stonebridge and can then say that he has refused it. That has been known to happen with training places.
I also wanted to say that occasionally one finds something happening in the past which could have happened yesterday. In 1610, in another place, a Member was discussing a case at the court of King Cambyses in Persia. His Ministers were asked, "What law have you got for what you are doing?" They replied, "None at all, but we have a law that the King may do whatever he likes". Our complaint is that that law is still in force.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall attempt to answer those two points. If the noble Earl has any evidence that there is the equivalent in the training system of the kind of council estate he mentioned —that there are a number of training places so awful that no one in his right mind will accept them—I hope he will let me know, because that is in no way within the meaning of the Bill or the desires of Ministers. So I hope that his example is not true. However, if there are such examples, I need to know.
I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, used a good example because for me the proof of the pudding would be on the operating table. The mistake that had been made would be quickly realised, and the youngster could make the point.
Baroness Seear: He may have a grumbling appendix.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was quite a long time ago, I grant, but I remember what it was like to have a grumbling appendix. It seemed to object, in particular, to bananas. It put me off bananas for life. I understand the points being made, although I am not sure that I understand what significance adding those words, or the clever intervention of the noble Baroness with regard to some other words, would have to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the matter reaching the Minister.
1082
I do not expect that the Committee will divide on this matter. I am prepared, without any commitment, to say that I shall reflect on the points made in the debate—as I reflect on all points, of course—with special interest, and consider what has been said.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My noble friend has just said to me that that is a victory. I shall believe that when it happens. I listened to the appendix case, and I suppose a reality is better than an assumption. I can remember as a trade union officer being called into a factory on behalf of someone who had lost his job. The manager had asked him to go to a printing machine and he said that he could not because he had a rupture. I negotiated for him and got back his job on condition that he had a medical examination. He said, "I had better come clean. I haven't really. I just didn't want to go on that machine". I told him that he had a week to get one.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. I thank noble Lords who have been so generous in their support of the amendment. I heard what the Minister said. I noted carefully many statements that I would have challenged, but I take a great deal of comfort from his last point. I was concerned when he said that he would not go to the stake over this matter. To go along while being dragged screaming is never a satisfactory conclusion. He said that he would like to think about the matter, and I grasp that offer with both hands. I am happy to discuss it with him before we return to the issue on Report. On the basis of the Minister giving an undertaking that he will consider the matter—an offer which I should like to accept in the spirit in which I am sure it is intended—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Life Imprisonment: Information to Prisoners
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why the Home Secretary has informed certain prisoners that they are to remain in prison for the rest of their lives.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are to take part in the debate, especially the right reverend Prelate, because I am sure that he will underline the fine message in favour of penal reform delivered recently by the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have my usual sympathy for the Minister, whose sensitive soul is tortured by the moral dilemma of defending something

1083
that is indefensible. I think that I shall say that again and again. However, she cannot help it. There it is. It is her job.
The idea of life meaning life was first propounded publicly by the Home Secretary last December. It was of course unprecedented, despite some contradictory answers on that point given to me later by the Minister, and it was understood to mean that these unfortunate prisoners would remain in prison until they died. That was the public's impression, and it was the impression created on the prisoners, one of whom had to be placed under 24-hour guard lest she commit suicide. There is no doubt that the intention was to create that impression.
The decision was criticised sharply later by, for example, the noble and learned Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, in a radio talk early in the New Year, when he pointed out that no Home Secretary had the right to bind his successors. He said that it was cruel to say to Myra Hindley—he mentioned Myra Hindley in particular—that she had no hope of ever coming out. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, would have liked to be with us tonight. No doubt he would have spoken along the same lines.
That was how the matter was left until it was debated here. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, extracted from the Government the admission—about three months after the original announcement—that Mr. Howard could not bind his successors. That point was cleared up. In the meantime it had caused a great deal of unnecessary pain—pain which was no doubt unwelcome to the Minister, but it was pain all right.
Having disposed of the disingenuous tactics used in making the announcement, we come to the issue. There are a number of people serving life imprisonment. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has obtained details, but I know one of them very well—Myra Hindley. I first visited her in prison in 1968. I know another prisoner in this category also. Those are not the only prisoners serving a life sentence for murder whom I know well. I am in touch with about 10, I suppose, out of the 2,400 at present serving life sentences.
Let us take the case of Myra Hindley. We all remember that she was involved in horrible crimes. She was a girl infatuated with her accomplice, a man who has been in a special hospital for many years, She has always agreed that it is only right and proper that she should serve many years in prison. She has now been in prison for nearly 29 years.
When Myra Hindley was first sentenced, the Lord Chief Justice recommended 25 years, but later, Ministers secretly, or without conveying the decision to the public, decided that she should serve 30 years. Later still, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was Home Secretary at the time, decided that life should mean life. That decision was not conveyed to the public. For whatever reason, it was kept dark. At any rate, that was the infamous decision reached at that time. Now, Mr. Howard, whether willingly or because he was forced as a result of various judicial decisions, announced that life would mean life.
We can consider the matter on its merits. If I take that particular case—my noble friend Lord McIntosh may tell us about others—there is someone who, by no conceivable stretch of the imagination is a danger to the public. It is years since the then chairman of the Parole Board told me that she was no danger. Since then, she has been twice recommended for parole by the local review committee, so there is no question of danger, but Mr. Howard has insisted that, however virtuous she becomes, she should stay in prison for the rest of her life. I can only describe that as an evil decision.
We may ask what is the explanation for that. I am afraid that there is only one possible explanation. Mr. Howard is a very intelligent man and for all I know, he may be an excellent man in his private life. This Government are the most unpopular government in history. We all know that they are many, many points behind the Labour Party in the polls and they are about to receive a crushing defeat in the local elections. This immensely unpopular Government are making frantic endeavours to endear themselves to the cruder elements of the public.
One must admit that they have been assisted by the tabloid press. I take the Sun as an example. I should say that Myra Hindley has recently broken her hip and is now in prison hospital, having had an operation. The Sun, which is undoubtedly close to Mr. Howard in its thinking, pointed out that, although I would probably be sympathetic, everyone else would wish that she had broken her neck. That is the kind of tabloid expression of opinion which has built up hatred towards that person over the years. The Sun calls her a monster and is begging her to write an article for it. That is the tabloid support for Mr. Howard's policies.
Therefore, we have that policy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, says it is cruel to remove all hope from prisoners. That has never been done before. It is totally anti-Christian, which should shock the noble Baroness, who is a good Christian. It takes us half-way back to capital punishment.
To be fair for once to Mr. Howard, I believe that he is now against capital punishment. Earlier he was in favour of it but he is now against it. That is in his favour. But his policy takes us back to the debates in this House in 1957, when I heard the Lord Chief Justice of the time say about one man who had been convicted of murder that such a man should be destroyed. That is the attitude of those who say that some prisoners should remain in prison for life. Some people believe that some sins cannot be forgiven and that such a person should be destroyed. I shall not ask the noble Baroness again whether she can reconcile that with her conscience because I believe that that is unfair. She has a tender conscience and that would be an occasion of mortal sin. But I put on record that I believe that that policy is fiendish. I hope that, when a Labour Government take power or even when a different Home Secretary takes over, that policy will be forgotten and repudiated as far as it ever can be.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I understand that it has always been possible to keep a person in prison for the rest of his or her life within our system. I, for one, accept that there is a need for society to

1085
be able to repudiate horrific crimes with sufficient severity and without resorting to capital punishment. However, I wish to add that the Christian tradition and other traditions are not only about peace and forgiveness but are also about justice, reparation and repentance. Therefore, in some cases a life sentence may have to mean what it says; that is, life-long imprisonment.
On the other hand, there is the profoundly important consideration underlined by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that nobody is irredeemably evil. People can and do change. That can be for a wide range of reasons which may include remorse, maturity, growth in insight, ageing, the influence of other people, and personal and spiritual change. The mystery of personality of whatever kind is that it can change. Therefore, it is surely a near-fatal blow to any person, however heinous his crime, to be told that however deeply and seriously he repents, and whatever real and lasting transformation is achieved, there can never be any hope of a fresh life outside prison.
However severely society needs to repudiate a terrible crime, as the noble Earl has already pinpointed, should there not always be some hope of eventual rehabilitation following both just punishment and true repentance? To lose hope is to lose a key part of our humanity.
One of the prison chaplains with whom I have contact reminded me recently that a declared purpose of the prison system is not only to punish crime but also to nurture that precious virtue of hope which can be a catalyst both to personal change and future rehabilitation.
My most serious anxiety is that the disclosure of a sentence lasting for the rest of a natural human life could eradicate hope. It is no wonder that, as the noble Earl told us, one lady needed a 24-hour guard to prevent her from committing suicide.
At another time the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has quoted a well-known saying of Augustine that we hate the sin but love the sinner. I want to argue that in a civilised society, we must not only hate the sin but also maintain hope for the sinner.
Finally, although I am a layman in these matters, I understand that for all prisoners serving life sentences the Home Secretary has an important ministerial power; that is, the power to review each case when the prisoner in question has been in custody for 25 years. Indeed, I understand that the Home Secretary has further powers to review the case every five years after that first 25-year review. May we be assured that the Home Secretary will exercise those powers for the 17 people about whom we are concerned? Further, when the Home Secretary undertakes his review, will he take account not only of considerations of retribution and deterrence but also of evidence of contrition, change, and, therefore, the hope of rehabilitation?
Let us hate the sin but let us not give up all hope or, importantly, allow the prisoners to give up hope for the sinners themselves.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the right reverend Prelate said. But the first objection to informing people that they are to be kept in prison literally to the end of their lives, even if they are by that
1086
time enfeebled and utterly harmless, is pragmatic and utilitarian. If there is to be no remission whatever for good behaviour, there can be no incentive to co-operate or to behave well, and no disincentive, should the prisoner be so inclined, to refrain from murdering or causing grievous bodily harm to a prisoner or prison officer, given that the penalties for so doing are minor compared with the prospect of spending another 50 or 60 years in prison come what may. In other words, the decision would seem to be prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline.
The second objection—which refers back to what both the noble Earl and the right reverend Prelate said—is a moral one, if that does not sound too pompous. To rule that prisoners, however well they behave and however much they repent and try to atone for their dreadful crimes, can never be released under any circumstances is actually more cruel than inflicting the death penalty. At least the death penalty fulfils one of the main criteria for a just punishment; namely, that it should follow as quickly as possible upon the crime. I refer, of course, to the relatively speedy and efficient former English procedure and not what we have recently seen in the United States of America.
In contrast, by continuing to punish people possibly 50 or 60 years after the event you are in effect punishing a totally different individual, physically, mentally and emotionally, from the one who originally perpetrated the crime. After all, that was one of the objections—although by no means the only one—to instigating war crimes trials 50, 51 or 52 years after the events in question.
When the whole issue of the death penalty was being debated in the 1960s, liberal-minded friends and acquaintances used to say that, even for those guilty of the most heinous murders, they opposed the death penalty. Instead, they favoured locking up those individuals for life and "throwing away the key", to use a phrase that was greatly in vogue at the time. They imagined that they were being humane but actually they were being squeamish which is a very different kettle of fish: humane they were not.
I return to the main issue. The Government will undoubtedly argue that there are two categories of prisoner who can never be released in any circumstances, even after perhaps 50 or 60 years. The first category consists of those deemed to be chronically homicidal and hence perpetually dangerous. What? Even if they have become bedridden, three-quarters blind or so crippled with arthritis that they can scarcely move? I suggest that the words "never released" in that case should be replaced with "not released until they are physically harmless." Further, once those prisoners have served the term of years which a trial judge originally deemed necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, their status should revert from that of prisoner to one of what one might call "preventive detainee", rather like someone compulsorily detained in a mental hospital, with correspondingly improved conditions and amenities subject, of course, to the requirement of security. After all, the period of years which they have served as pure punishment has elapsed by that time.

1087
The second category of prisoner and the one, I believe, upon which the noble Earl was mainly concentrating—the non-dangerous types, by which I mean people who were once dangerous but who are no longer so—consists of those the Government dare not release for fear of public opinion and consequent adverse electoral consequences, even though they have served fully the period recommended by a trial judge as being sufficient to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
The Government have only themselves to blame in that respect. It is their absurd insistence on retaining so called "life" as the only sentence for murder that is responsible for their dilemma. Far from reassuring members of the public, so called "life" arouses their suspicions. First, the general public are firmly of the impression that life equals, in practice, nine years. I believe that it was true at one time that that was the average period of imprisonment served by life prisoners when capital punishment was in operation and only those reprieved were, by definition, serving life imprisonment. That is no longer the case.
Then, and more importantly, there is the quite understandable confusion between what might be termed gross and net sentences. On one day people read in the newspapers that a judge has sentenced a bank robber who has shot and wounded, for example, two security guards and a police officer to 22 years' imprisonment. The very next day they may read in the newspapers that the same judge has sentenced a murderer to life with a recommendation that he serve not less than 20 years. The public is understandably outraged, imagining that the murderer got off more lightly than the bank robber. Of course, he did not. The murderer's sentence is tantamount to 40 years gross; but the public can hardly be expected to grasp that fact.
If, instead, the law were altered so that judges could impose gross sentences ranging from, let us say, three or four years—or possibly even less—for a mercy killing; five to 12 years, but possibly more in the worst cases, for domestic murders; 25 to 45 years for ruthless, professional criminals who prefer to shoot their way out of a robbery; and the really dramatic, headline grabbing sentences of 50, 60 or 70 years' imprisonment for ultra-heinous crimes, happily perpetrated on average no more than once every 10 years—for example, deliberate child murders, or for murderers who blow up a passenger aircraft—members of the public would be largely satisfied, though not wholly, I grant. Those who are rightly sentenced to very long, determinate terms, unless they happen already to be middle-aged (and not many fall into that category) will be able to see a light, however faint, at the end of the tunnel, and will improve their behaviour accordingly.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I was tempted to remain seated and, therefore, to allow the Minister rather longer to reply. That is because I believe the issues behind the Question have been very well expressed in the course of tonight's short debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that what we needed was clarification as to whether the words really did mean what they said, or whether it has now been very plainly
1088
conceded that the present Home Secretary could not bind his successor. We need to be sure which is the case. However, even if the second interpretation is correct, I have to say that the intention is in the wish. The present Home Secretary expressed the view that some prisoners should remain in prison for the rest of their lives. Whether that is possible constitutionally does not take away the fact that he made the statement and that that is his own clear preference.
The right reverend Prelate talked about justice, repentance and reparation. He said that no one is irredeemably evil. I believe that that is a sentiment which many of us who may not be as close to the Church as is the right reverend Prelate would indeed share. I do not believe that anyone in this House today, or on other occasions, could deny that the idea of redemption must have its place in our penal system. If prisoners are to remain in prison for the rest of their lives, the opportunity for redemption is totally excluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was most thoughtful and persuasive. I listened to him with the greatest of care. We should be immensely grateful, as always, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for probing so acutely into a dark comer of government penal policy. Over very many years, the noble Earl has defied popular criticism—and, if I may say so, some ridicule—in the causes that he has espoused. However, he has always been brave and nine times out of ten—if I am allowed to make that slight amendment—he has been right. I certainly believe that he is right on the issue under discussion.
In his usual sincere but subtle way, the noble Earl said, in effect, although I must not put words into his mouth, that the Minister should not be held responsible for the sins of the Home Secretary. Indeed, some of those, if you like, "sins of report", were committed during that famous speech at the Conservative Conference in 1993 before the noble Baroness was a Minister in the department. Therefore, one cannot hold the noble Baroness responsible for them. However, some of those sentences were expressed in a more austere way (I recall that "austere" is one of the Home Secretary's favourite words for applying to prisons to which he wants to condemn some people forever), in the Home Secretary's speech during the Debate on the Address on 18th November last in another place.
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it is impossible—and one has to make that point now—to separate the issue, its presentation and the sentiments behind it from the whole thrust of the policies of the present Home Secretary. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to those policies as appealing to cruder elements. That was a restrained way of saying what I would say; namely, that there has been a great deal of saloon bar populism in much of what the Home Secretary has said. Of course a Home Secretary who is a member of a Cabinet in a government which is responsible to an elected Parliament must take account of public opinion on this, as on other issues. But it is the role of Ministers to lead and not follow. I am afraid that in so many respects the present Home Secretary has chosen to follow and not to make a case for policies which substantially address the issues

1089
before the country. I remember the phrase used in the debate on 18th November last to which I have already referred, when he said:
"My task is to provide our country with the system of criminal justice for which it yearns".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 239.]
He did not refer to the most effective system of criminal justice, or the morally right system of criminal justice, but the system of criminal justice "for which it yearns".
In a different context I was interested to see the recent consultation document on strengthening punishment in the community, which stated at paragraph 2.6,
"The present arrangements suffer from the drawback that probation and supervision orders do not appear to the public to offer sufficient punishment … Probation supervision is still widely regarded as a soft option. Although in many cases this perception may be misconceived, it must be addressed".
The usual way of dealing with a misconceived perception is to confront and to change it. However, I am afraid that is not the case with this Home Secretary in penal matters. His rule appears to me to be a case of, "Give me a misconceived perception and I will yield to it". That is, in my view, the background to the matters which we are discussing this evening.
The Minister missed the debate on training for the probation service that was held in this House a short time ago. However, I think she will know that the whole House, across all parties, was deeply distressed by the Home Secretary's proposals. No doubt the popular press would applaud ex-military policemen strutting their stuff with men on probation. However, that would not be a policy but an emotional spasm and that would be no way of dealing with the situation which this House fully recognised in the debate which was held only a short time ago.
As I say, I believe these issues form a background to the matter we are discussing this evening. However, there is another matter which it would perhaps be satisfactory to examine on a different occasion, and that is to consider what is the role of the Home Secretary on matters which otherwise might be thought to be appropriate to the judges and the courts. The Home Secretary has made a feature of the separation of the day-to-day responsibility of the Prison Service from the responsibility of the Home Secretary. In the debate on the matter Members of this House had doubts about whether that separation was effective. However, it is part of the Home Secretary's view —and let us take it on its merits—that there are strategic responsibilities which are his and day-to-day responsibilities which can be hived off to the director of the Prison Service.
If that is indeed the case, surely the Home Secretary should be drawing a clear line between the strategic issues of policy governing our penal policy, and leaving it to the judges and the courts to make these decisions. If the Home Secretary is afraid of what the popular newspapers will say about him if he fails to act in the way that he has been doing, the easiest route would be to say, "These are not matters appropriate to a Minister in a Government who is bound to be subject to strong day-to-day pressures. In some way they should be removed from ministerial responsibility altogether".
1090
The Home Secretary has set his own performance targets and has boasted about them. He believes that to have more and more people in prison is a measure of success. If the Minister doubts that, I refer her to paragraph 3 of page 12 of the Central Office press release of 6th October 1993, in which the Home Secretary said very plainly that more people in prison could be a measure of the success of his policies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I notice that from his first quotation to his second quotation the noble Lord has made some interesting changes. I would ask the noble Lord to tell the House—because he is making this a very public statement—when and where he saw or heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary saying, "More and more prisoners is a sign of success".
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if I have summarised the Home Secretary's views inadequately, let me clarify the matter. I quote from the press release:
"This may mean that more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that. We shall no longer judge the success of our system of justice by a fall in our prison population".
If one is not going to judge the success of the system by a fall in the prison population, it is not unreasonable to believe that one will judge it by an increase in the prison population. I shall not give way for a moment. This is a matter of opinion. The noble Baroness can express a different opinion when she replies to the debate. I would be happy to submit it to the judgment of laymen that most people would read that paragraph as I have expressed it.
I recognise the moral dilemma of the Minister. I do not wish in any way to be unfair to her. I know that she must defend the Home Secretary. But, if he meant what he said when he used the words that he did—let me put it that way —about numbers, then I think that perhaps he judges his own performance not only by numbers but by how many of those who are in prison now will stay in prison forever. That is a poor measure of success for a Home Secretary and it would be good if the Minister was able at least gently to dissociate herself from some of the harsher aspects of it.
7.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford is, as always, to be congratulated on his persistence in raising these humanitarian issues of penal policy before your Lordships' House. If we take his Question literally, it could be interpreted in a relatively minor sense as regards,
"why the Home Secretary has informed certain prisoners that they are to remain in prison for the rest of their lives".
The Question could be thought to be about the notification to prisoners rather than about the principle of whether prisoners should serve what I think is called "whole life". I shall dispose of that, I believe, secondary issue as quickly as I can because my noble friend and subsequent speakers have all talked about the more important issue of whether it is right for prisoners to be in prison for all of their lives.
I am grateful to the Minister for the replies she has given to me in recent months on the notification procedures which the Home Secretary announced at the end of last year. She has told me that the process of

1091
notification for general prisons as opposed to psychiatric prisons or secure hospitals should have been completed by now I believe and that 15—or it may now be 17—prisoners have been notified of the tariff which has been allocated by the Home Secretary.
I, personally, do not object to the process of notification. If one is to have a tariff, it is proper that those who are subject to that tariff should be told openly what the tariff is rather than be kept in the dark. As regards that secondary issue, I have no difficulty with the decisions of the Home Secretary. But, of course, the issue is much more profound than that. The issue concerns not whether notification is a good thing but whether a whole life—in other words, staying in prison until one dies—is a proper instrument of penal policy, or indeed a proper concept for a humane society to adopt. The response of noble Lords to my noble friend's Question and his characteristically passionate and morally based speech indicate that there is something profoundly wrong about telling people that they are going to stay in prison for the rest of their lives.
Of course there are other considerations, and above all the consideration of danger to the public. Nobody will say that those who continue to be a danger to the public because they have uncontrollable homicidal tendencies should be released into the community. The public anxiety on the matter is entirely justified. However, those are not the people serving in ordinary prisons. They are people who have, perhaps physically based, psychiatric problems which mean that they are not detained for deterrence but for their own safety and the safety of people around them. In effect, they are detained, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested in secure hospitals rather than in prison. Let us put that aspect on one side.
The protection of the public does, of course, require that there should be people in places like Broadmoor who will never be released during the term of their natural lives, even when they become enfeebled. That is not what we are debating tonight. We are dealing with the issue of those who are capable of repentance and change. As a non-Christian I believe with the Christians that we are all capable of repentance and of change.
We are debating a system which has been adopted by the Home Secretary. First, he has decided that he, the politician, Member of Parliament and Home Secretary, has the right to change the tariff which has been determined by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. Not surprisingly, in recent years such changes have always involved an increase in the tariff rather than a decrease. Secondly, the Home Secretary will tell people who are of sound mind and capable of repentance that they will never be released. I suggest that that is morally wrong and cannot be defended either in terms of humanity or, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, made clear, in terms of the way prisons are run.
If people are to be restrained or confined, there has to be some sanction upon them. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, very effectively made the point that the sanction has to include the prospect of some reward at the end of a period of imprisonment. If the period of imprisonment is for life with no prospect of anything else, then the whole relationship between the prisoner and the institution in which he is confined changes. It becomes a relationship
1092
without hope, as the right reverend Prelate said, and a relationship which is destructive, not only for the prisoner and the institution but for all other prisoners who are confined in the same institution.
It is not a dereliction from our concern for public safety that leads me to say that I agree with my noble friend and all those who have spoken. It cannot be right for us to decide, and above all for politicians to decide, that prisoners serving mandatory life sentences should never be released.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, speaks very much from the heart on these matters. I understand his concern about those prisoners who have been informed in recent months that previous Ministers have considered that the nature of their crimes demands that they should remain in prison for the rest of their lives—in other words, a whole life tariff has been set. I know that a number of noble Lords, including some who have spoken during this evening's debate, share that concern.
The issue here is a simple one. Is it right that in some cases a life sentence should mean just that? The Government's view is that it is entirely proper that in the very worst cases the extreme rigour of the law should be allowed to take its course. Indeed, we believe that there would be outrage in the community if some murderers were to be released into the community.
As I explained to your Lordships' House in response to the Starred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 20th March, the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the courts affords sufficient legal authority to detain a person so sentenced for the remainder of his or her natural life. However, the imposition of a life sentence does not mean in practice that all murderers will be incarcerated for life. Far from it. In the vast majority of cases it has always been considered right that the extreme rigour of the law should be mitigated.
Perhaps I may give the current figures. Of 2,500 murderers serving mandatory life sentences, there are 16 people for whom a life sentence has been said to mean life and whose tariffs have been disclosed to them.
The period which must be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence is fixed by the Secretary of State only after very careful consideration of the case, including, very importantly, the views of the judiciary—the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. I can assure your Lordships that it is not a decision that is taken likely. The tariff in a particular case will be tailored to reflect the specifics of that case. In a small number of instances the horrific nature of the crime may require that the period must be the whole of the murderer's life. We cannot escape from the fact that where the gravity of an offence is such that it can only be reflected by detaining the offender for the rest of his life a life sentence will, and indeed should, mean life.
When discussing this issue, it is important that we give a thought to those victims—innocent men, women and children —who received a life sentence and for whom

1093
there was no opportunity to consider parole or release, victims who were cruelly cut down by those who are the subject of this debate.
As your Lordships are aware, the prisoners who have been informed that previous Ministers set a whole life tariff in their cases have been offered an opportunity to make representations against that decision. No decisions have yet been made by current Ministers to confirm or vary those tariffs. I informed the House on 24th January in a Written Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that such disclosure had been made in 15 cases. Your Lordships will wish to be aware that a further two prisoners have now been told that whole life tariffs had previously been set in their cases. Should somebody do their arithmetic and think that I have made a mistake, a prisoner has died in prison, which accounts for the missing case.
That is part of the exercise which has been embarked on as a result of the Doody judgment, a judgment with which this House is familiar. That judgment has resulted in important changes to procedures. There is now much more openness, a change which I believe your Lordships welcome as a very positive development.
It is that requirement for greater openness which means that, if it is right that whole life tariffs should be set in some cases—and I have made clear that it is the Government's view that that is the case—then we have no choice but to tell the prisoners concerned. I wholly appreciate that such prisoners may feel that they have no further hope of release.
I remind the House, however, that, even if whole life tariffs are set as a result of the current exercise, that is not the end of the matter. In reply to a point made by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, I can say that all such cases will, as a matter of course, be reviewed at intervals to consider whether the whole life tariff should be converted to a tariff of a shorter period. In addition to the standard ministerial review of all mandatory life cases at the 10-year point, a further review will take place when the prisoner has been in custody for 25 years and, where appropriate, will normally take place at five-yearly intervals thereafter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I cannot understand the point of a review if the prisoner is in prison only because of the original crime. How can the horror of that original crime be mitigated by further reviews? It is meaningless.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suspect that at the end of the day we shall have to agree to differ. However, the specific responsibility of the Home Secretary of the day is to consider whether retribution and deterrence have been properly met by the serving of the sentence. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, such reviews will be confined to the considerations of retribution and deterrence. I believe that the right reverend Prelate would see that as some limitation; but those are the limitations on my right honourable friend.
I know that such consideration falls short of the type of review that some have in mind—that is, a review which would take account of a prisoner's progress during sentence—but it is the only review which we believe appropriate.
1094
Once the Home Secretary of the day believes that the requirements of retribution and deterrence have been met, it is then a matter for the Parole Board to make judgments about behavioural patterns, risks assessments, and so on, to determine when a prisoner should be released. Behaviour subsequent to the offence can do nothing to change the seriousness with which such events must be viewed and the retribution which should follow it, so far as concerns the Home Secretary's consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, not for the first time, personalised much of what he said. Much that he said missed the point of the debate. It is not the present Home Secretary who brought about the mandatory life sentence. That has been with us for a long time. My right honourable friend is responsible for making the system more open, for ensuring that those prisoners who are subject to whole life tariffs—they have not at this stage been levied by my right honourable friend but by previous Home Secretaries—have all information available to them, including all information relating to their sentence from the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judges. When the prisoners are in receipt of that information, they can indeed appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider their tariff.
I believe that that openness is welcomed. I believe it is right that people should have that information. It provides at least a glimmer of hope that, first, the person knows the full information and, secondly, that he or she knows the process by which the case will be reviewed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, grossly distorted what my right honourable friend has said—again not for the first time. When my right honourable friend refers to prisons, he believes that, for some, prison works. However, my right honourable friend has a robust programme of community sentencing. Where it is appropriate for people to serve their sentences in the community, he believes strongly in that, too. Therefore whether the numbers of people in prison are rising or falling is not the measurement of whether the judicial system works. The measures are the effectiveness of prison sentence where it is appropriate, and the effectiveness of non-custodial sentence where that is appropriate.
In conclusion, I would say that it is in the Government's view vital, both as a matter of principle and in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, that the punishment should fit the crime. There will be few crimes which merit incarceration for life; but, for those that do, this Government will not flinch from ensuring that the perpetrators do indeed remain in prison for life.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("such meaning as may be prescribed") and insert ("the same meaning as in section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973.").
The noble Earl said: We are now hack again with training Humpty Dumpty. The Bill states that "training" has:
"such meaning as may be prescribed".
The Government state in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that their intention is that "training" should have the meaning it has in Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. That meaning is perfectly acceptable to me. Why have the Government not put it in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I listened with interest to the brief speech of the noble Earl who mentioned Humpty Dumpty. I thought that he was going to talk about "The Yeomen of the Guard" which I had the pleasure of seeing on Monday. I hope that I can explain why the provision is arranged the way it is.
As my noble friend explained in the debate on Clause 3, it is our intention to bring forward regulations to define training and other assistance for 16 and 17 year-olds. Our intention is that the definition for "training" will be certain training provided for the youngsters pursuant to arrangements made under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The definition of "other assistance" will be certain other assistance provided for them pursuant to arrangements made under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act. I know that the noble Earl is not keen on regulations, but I think that this time he is teasing me about what was and was not put into the Bill in this case.
Over the past 15 years the Government have brought about significant reforms and changes in training and other provision for young people. We continue to do so. Modern apprenticeships in particular will provide training for young people to at least National Vocational Qualification level 3. They are a serious reform of our training system and will make a significant contribution to improving the nation's competitiveness.
I believe that the noble Earl recognises the strength of the reforms and I hope he also recognises the seriousness of our intentions. It is important that we maintain forward momentum in order to keep our competitiveness in global markets. That means having flexibility to take account of future developments. Like many matters in social security legislation, the definitions are not entirely straightforward. That is illustrated by the fact that even the noble Earl's amendment is technically deficient. I am sure that he is aware that a wide range of training is provided under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act. His amendment embraces it all, although only a small part of it—principally youth training and modem apprenticeships—forms the basis of the Government's youth training guarantee. I am sure that the noble Earl would not wish us, any more than we do, to be able to fulfil the guarantee by offering young people pre-retirement training for example.
1096
I believe that we must specify certain training only in that regard and the training may change over time. I believe that regulations are the best way to achieve that level of detail.
No doubt the noble Earl will tell me that it is unimportant that his attempted draft is technically defective and that we or he could bring forward a correct version. I sympathise and to that extent I am sure that he could get round the problem that I have just raised. However, I do not believe that it is as simple as that, for the reasons I have demonstrated. There are differences that we must be able to reflect in the future; changes will be made and even different arrangements within the United Kingdom. We must ensure that the legislation provides for them. I believe that the matter is best left to secondary legislation to deal with and I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his reply. I admit that it was not my intention to provide for post-retirement or pre-retirement training. Then I thought for a moment about the state of the labour market and asked, why not? I thought for a moment longer and decided that you cannot retire until you have had work. The Minister appreciates that I have misgivings about the legislation because it enables future governments to change the meaning of "training" in any way they like. However, I have made the points before and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Reduced payments]:
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable]:
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 136 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 137 to 142, due to pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 13, line 44, leave out ("week") and insert ("day").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 139 and speak to Amendments Nos. 140, 141, 145, 146 and 147. This set of amendments concerns the period of disqualification. That is after a determination has been made by the adjudication officer. Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 deal with our anxiety that the minimum should not be one week but one day and the maximum not 26 weeks but four weeks. Amendment No. 140 is triggered by the problems of giving up or refusing a training course or failing to follow a jobseeker's direction.
Under the Bill, disqualification for up to 26 weeks may follow where a person has failed to observe a jobseeker's agreement and subsequent directions, where he fails to attend a training course or has lost or refused work without good cause. We on our side believe that the sanctions turn a jobseeker's agreement into a coercive

1097
policy. Presumably, a person who has failed to abide by the jobseeker's agreement or failed to follow a direction can have the benefit restored if he goes on to comply with the agreement and can remedy the situation. However, if the benefit deduction occurred for something that happened in the past, it cannot subsequently be rectified. Nothing that the claimant can do will permit the benefit to be restored. The problem particularly arises on the issue of training schemes.
In the past only a few such schemes carried sanctions with them. Now, all do. Even though the course itself may last for as abbreviated a period as, say, four weeks, the claimant can nonetheless have benefit sanction imposed for up to six months for failing to attend. Despite the Minister's honeyed words earlier about the courses being "suitable", "relevant", "appropriate" and "quality", as we all know, some of those courses are of poor quality and are deemed irrelevant.
We argue that a penalty of up to 26 weeks' sanction of benefit is grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence. It is a fine of six months' income. Forgive us if we believe, or fear, that this is a back-door method of protecting the TECs, which cannot win their clients in the market-place—as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, put it so persuasively earlier in the debate—and therefore have to do it essentially by workfare-type sanctions.
Turning to Amendment No. 146, a similar problem arises when people voluntarily leave employment. From 1911 to 1986 (75 years) society decided that it could adequately protect the National Insurance Fund by six weeks' disqualification. In 1986, the maximum disqualification period was extended to 13 weeks, and in 1988 to 26 weeks. In other words, the Government are saying that since coming to power they have had to quadruple the period of time during which someone suffers disqualification from benefit because so many voluntarily leave work—at a time of such acute unemployment. To coin a cliché, it beggars belief.
There may be good reason for people leaving employment. We all know of situations where there has been a severe reduction in pay or a worsening of hours and conditions, which nonetheless have not been accepted by the Employment Service as good cause. I am a little familiar with the arrangements that have affected local government since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. For example, cleaners' pay was cut from £3.75 an hour to £2.45 an hour; hours of work were put up from 37 to 40; there was no holiday pay and no sickness pay. Yet someone leaving that job was deemed to have left it without good cause.
As we explored in previous amendments, not only is benefit suspension extensive; not only is it applicable to new alleged offences; and not only is it disproportionate to the offence, but also the right to hardship payments has been restricted. Together, this cluster of amendments would limit the penalty to what is still a deeply unpleasant, though perhaps not so life-threatening a sanction as those that are currently in the Bill. If the alleged offence is repeated without good cause, there is nothing to stop a reimposition of the benefit penalty. But there is at least a chance for a turn in direction if that benefit penalty was imposed with good cause.
Behind the amendment is a wider concern about the effect of poverty on the families involved. The strain on families trying to live on reduced benefit is unbelievable. We know that families go without food; children go to school in the winter in canvas plimsolls with holes in them; we see disconnection of electricity; we see families trying to eat cold food through the winter; we see debts from which they never recover. Children play truant; they leave school; they leave home; marriages break down; the wife returns to her parents and the husband goes into a clinical depression.
I sometimes wonder, when the Government seem so free and easy with their proposals to impose no income for six months and then provide hardship payments for vulnerable families of only 60 per cent. of benefit, whether they have even the faintest idea of what it is like to live for six months either without benefit or on only 60 per cent. of benefit. I wonder how those same Ministers would feel if they could not give their children three meals a day because of a penalty imposed on them by us? I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may begin with some remarks about Amendments Nos. 139 and 145.
The overwhelming majority of people who become unemployed make every effort to find work at the earliest possible opportunity. Experience shows, however, that a small minority seek to abuse the benefits system. Benefit sanctions exist to protect the taxpayer and the National Insurance Fund contributor from subsidising people who have no good reason to be or to remain unemployed. They do that by influencing the behaviour of people who claim benefit or are thinking of claiming benefit. They also have an important role in reinforcing incentives for unemployed people to take the right steps to get back into work.
Both these amendments would reduce the minimum length of sanction from one week to one day, as was explained. Amendment No. 139 applies to the minimum length of a fixed-length sanction which can be prescribed for actions such as failing to carry out a jobseeker's direction or refusing to attend a prescribed course or programme.
Amendment No. 145 applies to the minimum length of sanctions that are determined by an adjudication officer for action such as leaving employment voluntarily without just cause; losing employment through misconduct; and refusing an offer of employment without good cause.
I appreciate that the shortest length of sanction that an adjudication officer can currently impose is one day. We believe that that is so short as to be meaningless. When an adjudication officer decides that a claimant has broken one of the benefit rules in this clause and has failed to show just cause or good cause for his actions, the result should be a sanction that will effectively deter claimants from acting in the same way, even when the minimum sanction is appropriate. JSA will be payable in respect of one week. It follows that the minimum length of sanction should also be one week.

1099
I now turn to Amendment No. 140. This amendment would stipulate in primary legislation that the maximum period of fixed-length sanction should be four weeks. can certainly assure the Committee that this is the Government's intention for the regulations that will establish the period of sanction for those circumstances relating to employment and training provisions. We believe it right to set a clear penalty, so that unemployed people will be in no doubt as to the consequences if they reject our help and assistance without good cause. I must emphasise the words "without good cause". They are the key to the triggering off of the penalty. But we must retain the flexibility to revise this period should it prove insufficient in providing the proper incentives for taking up government assistance. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.
Amendment No. 146 sets a maximum period of 13 weeks for sanctions for leaving voluntarily, for misconduct or refusal of employment and is unacceptable. Our experience in the 1980s showed that maximum periods of disqualification of both six and 13 weeks were simply not effective in discouraging people from making themselves unemployed. Returning to 13 weeks as a maximum would send all the wrong signals to unemployed people. We would, I am sure, see again more people leaving jobs of their own accord or refusing them for no good reason if they were offered.
It is important to recognise that a sanction of 26 weeks is not the norm. Where adjudication officers find that there are mitigating circumstances, they do not impose the maximum sanction—and quite rightly. Only 25 per cent. of cases of leaving voluntarily attract a maximum sanction. Only 40 per cent. of misconduct cases do. That gives a clear indication that adjudication officers weigh up the complex range of circumstances behind any decision to leave a job.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister tell us what is the average disqualification period?
Lord Inglewood: I am afraid that I do not have that information immediately to hand, but I will give the figure shortly if it is available.
In this context, if one looks back at subsection (6) of the clause, it is clear that this is not triggered by any occasion of leaving, and so on. It must, in the case of subsection (b), be someone who left employment without just cause. Otherwise, the good cause test is triggered again.
The noble Baroness made reference to workfare. It is terribly important that we put our position on this matter on the record. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment said in another place that workfare will not be imposed if that word is used in the sense that it implies the state acting as employer of last resort with benefit paid as a surrogate wage. The Minister of State for Employment made quite clear to the Employment Select Committee in November that there are no plans to introduce universal compulsory work schemes of this type. We want to have people doing things that will enable them then to enter real jobs. I was asked by the noble Baroness about the average figure to which I referred earlier. I am afraid that I do not have the average figure here, but I will willingly write to her and provide it.
1100
Finally, a suggestion was made that in some way or other these provisions were intended to assist the TECs which would otherwise be unable to fill up their places on employment schemes. I should like to put on record unequivocally that that is not so. I hope that those comments will reassure the Committee and that your Lordships will feel able to oppose these amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister said that it was in the Government's mind that there should be a maximum of four weeks' sanction for those who left employment or refused or left a training course without good cause. That is nowhere to be found on the face of the Bill. How do the Government expect their mind to be transposed into practice? Is it to be done by regulation and, if so, is it to be by negative or affirmative procedure?
Lord Inglewood: The proposal is to carry forward the existing arrangements where they apply. It will be done by regulation, as is made clear in Clause 16(2). The noble Baroness will know that the provisions that deal in particular with transitional regulations are to be found in Clause 33 of the Bill. Because they are transitional arrangements they will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously, I am being very stupid. Clause 16(2) does not mention four weeks. It provides:
"If the circumstances are any of those mentioned in subsection (5) the period for which the allowance is not to be payable shall be such period (of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks) as may be prescribed."
The Minister said that it is in the Government's mind to confine it to four weeks on certain conditions and that it will follow existing practice. How will that be ensured?
Lord Inglewood: I apologise to the noble Baroness for not making myself clear. That will be specified in regulation.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord said that he would provide the average figure. Would it not be better if he provided the median figure which would give a more accurate impression?
Lord Inglewood: Since the noble Baroness is being so statistically literate, I shall certainly do that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the Minister does have this information. The matter was pressed in the Commons and the Minister could not answer. I do not believe that it has been forthcoming. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in saying that what is important is what happens on the ground in practice, as opposed to minimum and maximum penalties.
I shall study the answer of the Minister and, if appropriate, perhaps return to it at Report stage. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 140 to 149 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 14, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 150 1 shall speak also to Amendment No. 158. The object of the two amendments is simple: to abolish the jobseeker's direction. The jobseeker's direction is oddly named. One might have thought that the direction would be given by the jobseeker. However the jobseeker receives the direction. It would be better called the jobseeker's additional burden. It is something more that the jobseeker has to do. If there is anyone who does not know by now what a jobseeker is, he is someone who used to be unemployed. We do not now have any unemployed people; they are all jobseekers who are trying to make themselves active and available. This idea may spread. We may have old age pensioners who are dependant-seekers, looking for people on whom they can be dependent. We may have sick people who are health-seekers, trying to stop eating unhealthy food. If they eat enough healthy food they may qualify for some benefit. We may have widows who perhaps can be spouse-seekers, trying to find ways to get off the parish. However, so far it is only the unemployed who have been turned into seekers after activity. If they are available and active enough they get some benefit, except under Clause 16. The purpose of Clause 16 is that, however active the seeker and whether or not he qualifies under every other regulation, he can still be caught. The main way that the Bill catches him is that he is given a jobseekers' direction.
We have the same objections to the jobseekers' direction as we have to most of the rest of the Bill. In effect, it is all in regulation; in other words, we do not know what the jobseeker will be directed to do. We are not told what will be in the direction, only that if he refuses it or fails to carry out any reasonable direction having regard to the circumstances on the face of the Bill, he will suffer loss of benefit.
We all know the general nature of the jobseeker's direction. On the face of the Bill, the purpose is to assist and improve the chances of employment. But we also know that the department has had something similar to the jobseeker's direction before there were jobseekers. In the days when we still had unemployment there was something called jobsearch assistance. We know that from the evidence submitted by the CABs about individual claimants who were put on endless restart programmes. In particular, one claimant in London was told, "The trouble with you is that you will not change direction". That is very apt, because in future if he does not change direction he will get a jobseeker's direction, will he not? He will have to change direction. A Berkshire claimant, an Afro-Caribbean, was repeatedly sent to low-paid manual jobs when he thought that he had excellent 0 and A-level qualifications and might be sent to other jobs. In future he will be given a direction. Of course, if one is given a direction and one does not carry it out there will be loss of benefit. The presumption is that one will have to enter some kind of appeal process to try to persuade the adjudication officer that the direction given is not adequate or appropriate.
We say that this is not necessary. It is now half past eight. We have debated for a long time the many ways in which the Bill is more than sufficiently coercive in placing further impositions upon a person who was once
1102
unemployed but is now a jobseeker. There is no need whatever for jobseeker's directions, and that is why I move this amendment.
Earl Russell: I listened with great amusement to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. When he talks about spouse-seekers, I have one little piece of advice for him:
"Beware of widders, Sammy !"
It is a matter of shame to me that my name is not added to this amendment. It is the result purely of an oversight. Almost certainly the oversight is mine. In spite of the absence of my name, this is probably the most important issue left in the remainder of the Bill. The jobseeker's direction is, I think, the most arbitrary power that I have ever seen conferred in English law, if indeed it is conferred. It has not yet happened. It gives to one person almost total control over the life of another. It gives them the power to direct those people to do all sorts of different things (most of which we probably have not yet imagined) on pain of total loss of benefit. It is a penalty which in my book is rather worse than imprisonment. What would we have said if the Bill had introduced a power to imprison the jobseeker if he did not obey the direction? I can reassure the Committee that I should have resisted a power to imprison the jobseeker, but I think that I would not have been quite so shocked as I am by a power to disentitle. The power to disentitle leaves the person to rot away slowly. That is the crueller of the two.
I know that the Minister will invoke "reasonable" and the adjudication officer. I shall not dwell on the point that we do not yet know the criteria of "reasonable". They will only come in the regulations. I shall dwell on the fact that the adjudication officer, on present figures, is 22.4 weeks away. That is 22.4 weeks before one gets the next little amount of money. It is a bit steep. It raises the question of what will be regarded as good cause for not taking up a job offer.
I want to ask a question of the Minister. It needs an answer at some stage before the Bill is put through. Will it be good cause to refuse a job that the travelling is too long and too difficult? There are many jobs—such as the one that I mentioned recently near Cardiff, where a man ceased to go to his job because his workmate had left his job and could not give him a lift there—which are too far for people reasonably to be expected to go.
Secondly, will it be a good reason for refusing a job that the work-related expenses form too high a proportion of the wages to make it worth a person's while? In my local Jobcentre, advertisements for plumbers or electricians almost always say "own tools essential". That condition can create genuine problems. Moreover, it can often happen, even in London, that the costs of travel are so great as to be prohibitive. Is that to be a reasonable ground for refusing a job? Those questions need answers.
In general, we on these Benches tend to believe that people are usually, but not invariably, the best judges of their own interests. People are usually the best judges of their own family interests. There may be reasons inside the internal dynamics of a family why one type of job, circumstances or hours in particular are simply not viable. For example, it may break down the whole of the care

1103
arrangements. We do not know whether the employment officer will be interested in that point. He may very well not be interested.
This is the kind of arbitrary power which, in my opinion, nobody ever ought to have over another. In fact it comes remarkably close to forced labour. That is something which I did not think we would ever see in English law. I am very sorry to see it put before this Chamber.
Lord Swinfen: Between now and the next stage of the Bill, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will ponder very seriously the wording "without good cause" in this subsection and compare it with the Government's arguments made on Amendments Nos. 128 and 129. They have drafted this clause. I do not see why an amendment similar to the previous amendment should not be brought forward by the Government themselves at the next stage.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I want to raise one other issue on this amendment. I wholly share the consternation advanced so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Russell. I too find it extraordinary that directions of this kind should be able to be given by one human being to another, not least by someone employed in the public service to a citizen, and a rather disadvantaged citizen.
The issue is a separate one. I should be most grateful if Ministers would respond to it. One cannot help wondering whether one purpose of the Bill is to lead to a dramatic reduction in the figures for statistical unemployment. Obviously, if people are disallowed benefit in large numbers, the effect will be to remove them from the register of people who are seeking work. I suppose that following the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, we should now call everyone a frustrated jobseeker instead of an unemployed person. But, whatever the word used, I take it that the statistics will reflect something. I wonder what they will reflect. I suspect it will be something more and more removed from the actual realities of unemployment. As the Minister knows, the statistics have already been changed many times.
My question therefore is this. Since it is important for the nation to have some idea of the real level of unemployment, in view of the legislation that is now being passed, which will make it increasingly difficult for someone without work to count as unemployed (they will count as something else), will the Government consider shifting the basis of raising statistics on those without work to assist them with labour censuses, such as those in the United States, which allow people to answer questions such as, "Are you seeking work?", "Are you able to find work and how long have you been seeking it?" and so forth? I fear the basis towards which we are now moving and what it will increasingly mean for whatever statistics are offered. I should also like to ask whether there is to be a monthly figure for those still seeking jobs who have not been placed but who are not on benefit as well as those who are. I should like to press the Minister on that because the statistical question is an important one from the point of view of drawing up economic policy. I am not at all
1104
clear what proposals are now being made for advancing employment statistics in any reasonable and transparent way.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend Lord Swinfen, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised a number of important points. I shall do my best to give them answers which I hope they will find satisfactory.
These amendments would seriously undermine the necessary powers to ensure that unemployed people take the right steps. Unless their actions actually called into question their availability for employment or whether they were actively seeking work, unemployed people could ignore, with impunity, any reasonable direction given to them by Employment Service staff. That is not acceptable. Unemployed people must make every effort to get back to work and for those who do not, it is right that we should require them to take action to do so. That is what these provisions are about—enabling activity to be required of unemployed people where appropriate in order to increase their chances of getting a job.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for many years there has been a provision whereby Employment Service staff can instruct unemployed people to take certain steps to get a job. The official recommendation to take such steps carried with it the threat of a benefit sanction if the claimant failed to take action. However, the provision is difficult to use because recommendation must relate to a specific type of employment in the locality. We are following in JSA that same approach but extending it. We plan to make sure that Employment Service staff can use this provision more widely across the range of actions that unemployed people may need to consider to increase their prospects of getting a job.
Jobseeker's directions will be specific to individuals. It may help the Committee if I read out from the Bill Clause 16(10) (b), which talks about the jobseeker's direction. It defines its terms of reference. The noble Earl was particularly concerned about the extent to which it might be possible. It reads:
"Jobseeker's direction' means the direction in writing given by an employment officer with a view to achieving one or both of the following"—
I should like to emphasise this point—
"assisting the claimant to find employment [and] improving the claimant's prospects of being employed".
That seems a very important element of the jobseeker's direction. It defines its purpose.
The directions will underscore the approach of actively seeking work. For example, the Employment Service officer might specify that the jobseeker should follow up specific job advertisements, that he might register with an employment agency, that he joins a job club or that he attends a suitable course. The Employment Service will, I am sure, never need to issue a direction to the vast majority of genuine jobseekers who will be happy to take such steps on the advice of the Employment Service. But for those who wish to avoid such help the consequences will be clear: loss of benefit for two weeks—as prescribed in the regulations—rising to four weeks if the jobseeker refuses consequently to carry out a subsequent direction.

1105
Of course there must and will be proper safeguards for individuals who fail to carry out a direction. It is important to be clear. The trigger for potential sanctions is only when a failure takes place without due cause. It was the noble Earl who raised the question of the definition of what "good cause" might be. Currently, there is a considerable body of case law defining good cause. It is the Government's intention that this should be to some extent defined in regulations to provide a non-exhaustive list of the types of matters that adjudication officers should take into account in making this determination.
A decision to impose a sanction will only be taken by an independent adjudication officer, not the Employment Service officer who has issued the direction in the first place.
Earl Russell: I should be grateful for clarification. The two courses I mentioned have hitherto been good. Will they continue to be so?
Lord Inglewood: It is my understanding that they will be.
Lord McCarthy: If I understand the Minister correctly, he seems to be saying that the employment officer will decide in the first instance that the direction has not been complied with. That will then go to the adjudication officer. It is the adjudication officer who will decide that that is the case. Where does the individual go to appeal against the decision of the adjudication officer who is the first person, the Minister says, to take the substantive decision? There seems to be no appeal at all.
Lord Inglewood: The Employment Service officer has to operate within the terms of the law in deciding, first, whether to impose a direction. Secondly, after a direction has been imposed, he has to be the first gate to see whether in his judgment the breach that may have occurred was one which occurred without good cause. Then, as the noble Lord says, the matter is passed to the adjudication officer. It is worth emphasising in this context that there is no question of any kind of disqualification from benefit until after the adjudication officer has looked at the matter.
Lord Swinfen: Will the passing of the matter to the adjudication officer mean that the jobseeker will have an opportunity to see the adjudication officer face to face, or will it be a purely paper exercise from which he is excluded?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies to that question, perhaps I may seek his guidance on another part of subsection (10), which is the issue of,
"such other person as may be designated for the purposes of this section".
If in giving a direction the employment officer has the kind of power we have been discussing, the extension of this power to some other person as may be designated, who presumably might be someone on a short-term contract, raises yet further disturbing issues.
Lord McCarthy: With respect, I was attempting to get the Minister to answer a question of mine. He has not yet answered it. If it is now being said to be the case that in this instance the benefit is not stopped until one gets to
1106
the adjudication officer, that is strange indeed, because in other cases the Government did stop the benefit. They stopped the benefit from the point when the employment officer took the decision. If it is the case that there is no real decision—and that is the answer—until one gets to the adjudication officer, then there is no appeal from the adjudication officer. The only way the adjudication officer could act as an appeal is if the decision were taken prior to him being involved. How do the Government reconcile all this?
Lord Inglewood: I should like to go back over what I said before. When the Employment Service officer makes a jobseeker's direction he has to do so within the terms of the law. If that is broken he has to determine in his mind, according to the criteria to which I have already alluded, whether or not that breach has been made without good cause. It is only if he believes that the breach has been made without good cause that the matter is sent to the adjudication officer. The crucial point here is that it is on the basis of the decision of the adjudication officer whether or not a disqualification occurs. To that extent he is the first person in the chain, but he is not the first person for the purposes of appeal which is against the decision of the adjudication officer and which lies to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. That appeal is the first time that, as it were, there has been a second opinion on the matter of whether the disqualification is appropriate but it is not the first decision that is made about the central criterion behind his decision—that is to say, whether the breach has occurred. So the failure to follow the direction has occurred without good cause.
Lord McCarthy: How do the Government justify the fact—I am not suggesting that they should go back on this—that benefit is not cancelled in this isolated instance until we get to the adjudication officer, whereas in every other case it is?
Lord Inglewood: The answer to that question is straightforward. In these instances there is a valid jobseeker's agreement in place and therefore an entitlement to benefit. The entitlement exists. Because the entitlement exists, the presumption is, until proved otherwise, that benefit is payable. That is the way the system works in this regard. That compares with arguments about availability for work and actively seeking work where we have not reached a position where an entitlement has been established.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We pursued this point from the other end on a previous Committee day. We tried to get the fining and disqualification from benefit on the actively seeking work clause, which takes place before the judgment is made, aligned with what the Minister in another place very belatedly conceded should apply to those situations where people voluntarily leave work, possibly without good cause, or whatever—misconduct and voluntarily leaving work. It was conceded, I understand, because the length of time it took—given the sensitivity and the difficulty of some of the relevant evidence—was up to 20 weeks. Even the Government in their embarrassment did not believe that someone could realistically live for 20 weeks without benefit while they decided whether the charge or the doubt was well founded. Given that the Government have accepted the

1107
point in that regard, what we would be expected to be told by the Government is why a similar system—whereby one is not punished until the offence is proved—should not apply to those who may or may not be actively seeking work.
Lord Inglewood: I come back to the point with which I started. The distinction between what we are discussing now and what we discussed on previous occasions is that we are talking about sanctions in respect of an action that has taken place, or is alleged to have taken place, after entitlement to benefit has been established. That is why in these instances, if there is an allegation of breach, the matter is carried forward in the way I have described.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That cannot be right. I take the point that where someone voluntarily leaves work or where there is misconduct there is a notion of an offence that has been committed in the past and, as the noble Lord says, an entitlement to benefit has been established. But the same is true for someone on JSA in respect of whom, say, two months or three months on, it may occur to the employment officer, particularly if he has not yet met his target for referrals of doubt, that he is not actively seeking work as energetically as he should and therefore, though an entitlement has been established in the past in exactly the same way as my noble friend outlined, it is suspended and cannot be reinstated until after the tribunal or discussion has taken place. What we are trying to establish is that the parallels between leaving work on the ground of misconduct or voluntarily leaving work are identical to the problems associated with actively seeking work. In both cases an entitlement has been established. In one, apparently, the offence has occurred and one would have thought that benefit would have been withheld, but instead it continues. In the other case, which is merely a doubt, and one does not know whether an offence has or has not been committed, the individual is being fined in advance of that doubt being established as valid. We still believe that that is monstrously perverse.
Lord McCarthy: In the terms of the Minister's defence, both individuals mentioned by my noble friend have a jobseeker's agreement. Therefore, contractually they were in exactly the same position.
Lord Inglewood: To say that they have a jobseeker's agreement cannot be true because we do not yet have a jobseeker's agreement. As we discussed on Tuesday, the point about the jobseeker's agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, commented, is that there is not a contract. Therefore we are not talking here about any kind of contractual relationship. I come back to the point that I have made on two previous occasions, There is a distinction between cases where there is an entitlement already in place and those where there is a doubt as to whether an entitlement exists at all.
Earl Russell: May I now safely deem the Minister to have sat down?
Lord Inglewood: Not quite. I wish to reply to the noble Earl. He raised a very good point and one which
1108
it is proper that we should answer. It was the question of whether, in determining good cause, we take into account such matters as travelling time. The answer to that is yes. It will be taken into account if it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so. The other point the noble Earl raised was about having to provide tools. That is one of the reasons behind the back-to-work bonus. It will provide a lump sum of money which will enable the person the noble Earl describes to do the things which he quite rightly says need to be done to get the job.
Earl Russell: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer. Before we are through with this matter I hope that he can tell us a little about the jobfinder's grant, which sounds like a good idea. There was one sentence early in the Minister's first reply which nearly took my breath away. I believe that I have got his words right. He said that this was one of the necessary powers to ensure that unemployed people take the right steps. What arrogance! How do they know what are the right steps? Is it not really the voice of the nanny state and that the state knows best; and that the state's judgment of what is the right step for people to take is necessarily better than that of the person taking the judgment?
Before that can be true we need to hope for rather higher standards of adjudication. According to the report of the chief adjudicating officer, 41 per cent. of sample decisions last year were found to be defective. The chief reason given for poor standards of decision-making was insufficient evidence. Voluntary leaving cases were most likely to be made without sufficient evidence. Do the Government believe that they know what are the right steps when that is the standard of the evidence from which their knowledge comes? Do they really believe that they know exactly what jobs people can and cannot do better than they can ever know themselves?
There are certain jobs which, if I were directed to take them, my wife would burst out laughing so loud that I would not dare go near them. She would be quite right and the employment officer who directed me to take them would be quite wrong. Nor is it fair on employers to force people into jobs in which they are almost certain to make really bad mistakes. They could even be jobs on which the safety of other people depends. We shall be soon having alcoholics forced to take jobs as bus drivers and then we shall be told that that is one of the right steps.
Before we are through with this matter, I shall be grateful to the Minister for a reply to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about the unemployment statistics. Are we going to continue having a claimant count? If so, is there going to be a clearly separate count, presumably based on the labour force survey, which will be quoted as the figures of the unemployed or are we going to be asked to believe that the statistics of those drawing the jobseeker's allowance are actually the statistics of the unemployed? I can assure the Committee that they are not going to be.

1109
One last word about unsuitability for jobs. A man from Balliol with a first in Greats went into the Army and was discharged after one week for mental insufficiency. We shall get more cases like that.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl again raises a number of important points. He began by saying that this is an unwarranted piece of activity by the nanny state in order to arrogate to itself the right to direct people in this regard. I understand the point he is making, but does he really believe that it is going to be right in reality? The whole concept at the core of the jobseeker's agreement is to try to ensure that the jobseeker and the Employment Service—which has a degree of expertise which, however jaundiced the view one might have about the state, the jobseekers themselves do not have—plan together to try to ensure that they can agree a series of steps which will be of help to the jobseeker.
The noble Earl gave some examples which rather spoilt his case because in many ways they were so extreme as to undercut a good point which he was trying to make. In the real world, given that there is expertise in the Employment Service, it seems to us that this is a sensible way of trying to help the person concerned to try to get a job by enabling him to tap in to an expertise which undeniably is there. The noble Earl said that the exercise of this power—I have attempted to explain how it is to be exercised in a legal context—will lead to the dramatically disadvantageous conclusions that he described. I come back to the point I was making a few moments ago. The whole matter is triggered off where there is no good cause on the part of the jobseeker. Quite apart from the fact that the Employment Service, as a matter of practice, endeavours to behave sensibly with people when trying to help them with their jobseeking activities, if it does something which is ridiculous it will give the jobseeker good cause to do something different. In that event it seems to us that much of the concern that the noble Earl expressed is reduced.
A number of other points have been raised. The noble Earl made a number of comments about the poor performance, as I believe he described it in shorthand, in sending papers to adjudication. It is precisely because the Employment Service wishes to improve on its performance in sending documents to adjudication that its annual performance agreement has been achieved. We have already discussed it. It is not a target for disqualification, but for the Employment Service to try to do better as regards the matters to which the noble Earl referred than it has done hitherto.
There are two other matters. The first was the jobfinder's grant. That aims to encourage people who have been out of work for more than two years to take a job by paying them a grant to help cover any additional expenses that they incur on account of taking a job. I hope that that helps to define the matter for the noble Earl.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked about the Government changing the basis for calculating the unemployment figures. The Government publish figures based both on the labour force survey, which contains the criteria to which the noble Baroness referred, and on those claiming benefit. We publish both
1110
and we shall continue to do so. I hope that that will enable the noble Earl and others to see exactly how things are progressing.
Earl Russell: The Minister asked me a question and I owe him an answer. He asked me whether I believe that is the way it will be in the real world. Yes, sometimes, I do. If it were one case in 10,000 I believe that that would be too many. When the Minister says "good cause", he means a cause which appears to the adjudication officer to be good. As long as the evidence available to the adjudication officer is defective, his decision cannot be any better than the evidence available to him.
We are all trying to look into a crystal ball when we ask how many times it will be like that. On the basis that I am looking into a crystal ball and that that is a highly dangerous activity, my estimate would be that it will happen in the region of 10 cases out of every 100—and that is a great deal too many.
9 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl has looked into his crystal ball, but I want to put on record that the kind of prognostication which the noble Earl has produced would not he acceptable to the Employment Service. Our aspirations are to do much better than that.
Earl Russell: Can the Minister tell me when my last prognostication about a government measure coming from the Department of Social Security was wrong?
Lord McCarthy: Unless the Minister wishes to reply to that, perhaps I may reply to the amendment. I do not want to curtail the debate because I am afraid that I have no alternative but to seek to withdraw the amendment. I thank all those who have participated in the debate—and all those who have participated, with, of course, the exception of the Minister, have agreed with the amendment.
I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has an absolutely unanswerable case. If we can have "good cause" here, why can we not have "good cause" in relation to disabilities? The Government have no answer to that. All that they can do is not answer the point, which is exactly what the Minister did. Although he did not answer our case, we shall return to it.
I agree with all the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with the exception of two. I do not agree that it is worse to have no money and to starve than to be in prison—but that is probably just something personal to me, particularly given what we know about some of Her Majesty's prisons. I would prefer to be outside looking in rather than inside looking out.
I do not believe that the amendment deals with the problem of forced labour. It is this amendment and the next one put together which relate to forced labour, and we shall be coming to that point.
Therefore, I now turn to what the Minister said. I have to say once again that we have not had an answer. We shall not continue with our arguments now because it is much better if the Minister goes away, talks to his

1111
friends in the Box and tries to put an answer together. There must be a better answer, because the question is simple: why is it that failure to obey a jobseeker's directive by a person who has a jobseeker's agreement—let us look forward into 1996 or 1997, when the thing is up and running—does not result in an immediate cut in benefit, whereas if somebody who has a jobseeker's agreement—they will all have them in the end—is suddenly found to be not actively seeking work he will be subject to an instant cut in benefit? That is the question to which the Minister must find an answer, because we have not yet had one.
Finally, not only have we heard no answers, but the Minister has not dealt with the point that the provisions are not necessary. The Government do not like this to be mentioned, but there was a long period from sometime in the 1940s until the late 1960s or early 1970s when we had no jobseeker's agreements—people then were "unemployed", except that there were none. When there was a sufficiently high level of demand, less than 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of our fellow citizens lay about not having a job. Everybody got jobs. I had 20 jobs in three years—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All at the same time?
Lord McCarthy: I got the sack from half of them. There was a time when there was a demand for labour in the economy and when we did not have to drive people into ever-increasing levels of activity—"wider still and wider shall thy availability be set, God who made the active make thee more active yet". That is what the Government believe—because there are no jobs and they have to keep driving people into further and further extremes of activity in order to pretend that there are jobs. We shall return to these issues on Report, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before calling Amendment No. 151, I must advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 151 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 152 and 152A.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 14, leave out lines 13 to 19.
The noble Lord said: We come back now to forced labour. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled Amendment No. 152, with which my amendment is grouped, but, although agreeing with it, I shall leave that amendment to the noble Earl. The Government's amendment, Amendment No. 152A, is also grouped with Amendment No. 151 and, if I understand that amendment—I may not—it makes the situation marginally worse, although not significantly worse because, God knows, it is bad enough.
We are seeking to delete what I call the "compulsory training clause". The provision states that if, without good cause, you fail to avail yourself of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme, if you give up such a place, if you fail to attend or so on and so forth, you will lose your allowance. I daresay that when we get to
1112
Report stage the Government will table an amendment to say that if you go on a course and fail to get a pass mark, you will lose your jobseeker's allowance.
Until I became involved in the Bill, I was not aware of how far this practice had gone, but we believe that quasi-compulsion has already gone a very long way. Attendance on an approved training programme is compulsory. That is all right because so far the only approved training programmes are YT and there are not many. Restart interviews are compulsory. They have been compulsory since January 1991. In other words, if you do not attend one of your compulsory Restart interviews, you lose allowance because you are not "seeking". Job plan workshops are compulsory, and have been compulsory since January 1992. Workwise and Worklink are compulsory. For some reason they have different names in Scotland and in England; God knows why. So, we already have built into the system a series of compulsory attendances. If the jobseeker does not do those things regularly as specified—as increasingly specified—he will lose his allowance. As a result, we are told that a 40 per cent. reduction in benefits is imposed on many workers who have been two years on the unemployment register, and there has been a significant increase in the number of disallowances.
In 1993–94, there were 15,699 reduced benefit disallowances. There were of course other things happening, but we believe that as a consequence of the increased compulsion, and the specification of what unemployed workers had to do, those disallowances rose to 40,438. They more than doubled in that short period. Yet the Government propose a major extension of compulsion. The Government now say that failure to go on an employment programme, which is not even necessarily training, could be a reason for disallowance. Training for work will be made compulsory. Attendance at job clubs could be compulsory. The intention is to make it compulsory.
What is the evidence that we need ever greater compulsion? What is the evidence of abuse? What is the evidence that workers, without that level of compulsion, in the 1980s and 1990s will not seek work, whereas in the 1940s, 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s they did seek work? There is no such evidence. There is no such evidence in the CBI survey, the ESRC surveys, the OPCS surveys or the Department of Employment's own 1992 Employment in Britain study. None of those surveys suggests that there is an outbreak of an unusual number of workers who do not want to be active, to be available, and who do not want to work.
If there were, we know that the Government would be quoting the evidence at us, night after night in these debates, but there is no evidence. Therefore we say that there is no case for a compulsory movement of this kind. We say that this direction, together with the direction about which we talked on the previous amendment, constitutes something close, as the noble Earl said, to a compulsory work state. That is where we have reached, and that is why I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I shall speak to Amendment No. 151 and government amendment No. 152A. The kind of circumstances which Amendment No. 151 seeks to

1113
delete have long been a feature of unemployment benefit legislation under different governments. Those circumstances are currently set out in Section 28(1) of the Social Security and Benefits Act, and indeed the Government's Amendment No. 152A seeks to make the correspondence with Section 28 even clearer. Both sides of the Committee, I think we can agree, have accepted the importance of sanctions in this area.
The amendment would reduce our ability to ensure that unemployed people take appropriate steps to assist their return to employment. Jobseekers could refuse to take advantage of the help offered through employment and training programmes. The vast majority of jobseekers, of course, welcome and make full use of such assistance. Sanctions would never be applied to those people. Experience shows, however, that a small minority does persist in refusing the help offered, without taking other sensible steps. For them, of course sanctions are important.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, talked about the increase in disallowances. The important point is that no one need be disallowed. It is jobseekers' actions which trigger off a change in their circumstances. Job plan workshops and restart courses, for example, will both be prescribed in regulations. People who refuse to attend or complete those mandatory courses without good cause, will therefore be denied JSA for a fixed period of two weeks, rising to four weeks for subsequent refusals. The Government believe that it is right for there to be a disincentive for rejecting provision which is designed to help motivate and prepare unemployed people, especially long-term unemployed people, for their return to the labour market.
I should like to reiterate and refer to the points that I made about workfare in the previous debate. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred also to employment programmes. I want to put on record that the test of an employment programme is that its predominant purpose is to assist the jobseeker to get back to work.
I shall turn now to government Amendment No. 152A which relates to the sanction that applies when people without good cause refuse or fail to apply for, or to accept, a place on a prescribed training scheme or employment programme. It is designed merely to carry forward all the circumstances relating to training schemes or employment programmes set out in Section 28(1) (f) of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992.
It was always the intention that all the circumstances relating to schemes and programmes set out in the current legislation should be carried forward into ISA. This amendment makes that clear in relation to failure to apply for a training place.
The amendment also makes it clear that the place must be notified to an applicant by an employment officer, which brings the provision into line with Clause 16(6) (c) in relation to refusal or failure to apply for an employment opportunity. I commend that amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I was interested in what the Minister said in relation to Amendment No. 152A where the Government recognise the importance of notifying the jobseeker that a vacancy has arisen. I
1114
wonder whether he now sees the logic of applying that to the situation of warning people in writing about the possibility of their benefit being disallowed. It seems to me that the argument in both cases is in favour of notifying people who may otherwise not realise what is happening.
I shall not move Amendment No. 152 with regard to "suitable" training places but I wonder whether the Minister will say anything about that. Earlier, the Minister dealt with a situation where no suitable training place is available. Is the fact that a training place is available sufficient to meet the conditions?
Lord Inglewood: I am afraid that I did not hear the last point made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: There is reference to a training place on the face of the Bill. Therefore, at least in theory, if a number of training places are available in a particular region, which are still vacant, although it may be that they in no way match the various qualities or capabilities of the person seeking a job, that person could be held responsible for not having taken up that vacant training place.
Lord Inglewood: We come back again to our old friend "good cause". Under those circumstances it seems to me that there is no doubt that the person would have good cause in not pursuing the matter further. Amendment No. 152 would prevent any sanction being imposed unless the place in question was "suitable". The word "suitable" would apparently not be defined further and we do not believe that it adds anything to the provision. As I explained, where some aspect of the training is unreasonable the claimant could argue that he had good cause for his actions. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps my noble friend will assist me as to the word "notify" in Amendment No. I52A. Is there a set procedure to follow so that the applicant is notified of any vacancies? I believe that Amendment No. 152A does not change the current climate.
Lord Inglewood: I can confirm to my noble friend that that is the case. To notify somebody implies that they are actually seized of the information which one is trying to transfer to him.
Lord McCarthy: It is quite disgraceful. I should like the Minister to go away and produce evidence. As far as I know there is no evidence whatever that a significant element of compulsion has been a permanent feature of employment administration. Looking at my list, all of the areas in which compulsion operates at present, with the possible exception of YT, were invented by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was at the Department of Employment. The continuous cycle of restart and restart was invented by the noble Lord, or he told the department to invent it. There were job clubs and more job clubs. All those provisions were invented in the 1980s, as are the proposals now to extend all that to job plan and workstart. It is a form of busybodying and interference in the problems of the unemployed. That goes back to this Government and no further. Unless I am given absolutely convincing evidence, I

1115
would argue that the element of compulsion starts with this Government. It is a monstrous libel not merely on Labour governments but also on previous Conservative governments to say that there has been a long tradition of compulsion in the Employment Service.
Apart from that, the Minister appears to have no argument at all. He certainly does not try to explain the rising number of disallowances. In fact, he says that there need not be those disallowances. However, the fact is that the number of disallowances has more than doubled in a very short period. The most notable event that has taken place in the Employment Service is a move to compulsion. As a result, there are more disallowances. The Minister has afforded me absolutely no explanation or apology for that. Indeed, he says that somehow it justifies the Government continuing with their actions. Therefore, although it is twenty past nine at night, I cannot agree to withdraw the amendment. I shall divide the Committee.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 41.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde B.

MonKswell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Desai, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Inglewood, L.

Addison, V.

Kingsland, L.

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

McCollofDulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Craigmyle, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Northbourne, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Downshire, M.

Rodger of Earlsfeny, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Skidelsky, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As Amendment No. 152A is grouped with the previous one and the previous one was defeated, I think that by the convention and Standing Orders of this Chamber this amendment now falls. The Minister gave no indication when speaking that this was separate from the others. We voted on the first amendment in the group and that fell; therefore the entire group falls.
Earl Russell: I do not think that is correct. The rule is that, if it is consequential upon the first amendment, then it is also carried or defeated as the case may be. I do not think that this is consequential and I do not think either the noble Baroness or the Minister would wish to think that their amendments were consequential upon each other. I think the Standing Order which prevails is that it is always open to—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I said that if Amendment No. 151 were agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 152 or 152A. Therefore I can now call Amendment No. 152A.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 152A:
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("refused or") and insert ("after a place on such a scheme or programme has been notified to him by an employment officer as vacant or about to become vacant, refused or failed to apply for it or to accept it when offered to him:
( )")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 15, line 2, at end insert
("( ) prescribe circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as having good cause if he leaves employment to take up caring responsibilities.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 155 we come to the important question of carers and their connection with the jobseeker's allowance. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a person who leaves work because of caring responsibilities will not be treated as having voluntarily left work without just cause and hence disqualified from JSA. The wording may not be perfect, but I believe that the Committee will understand the purpose of the amendment.
I remind the Committee that only last Friday the other place discussed the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, a Private Member's Bill which I believe the Government support. In that debate (at col. 426 of Commons Hansard for 21st April) it was pointed out that an estimated 1.5 million carers provide care for 20 hours a week or more and that that caring army of 1.5 million people is a larger labour force in our welfare society than the entire labour force of the National Health Service and the social services departments combined. If the Minister refers in his reply to the public expenditure arguments we should remember the billions of pounds that are saved for the public purse by carers.
I turn now to the detail of the amendment. Many carers are forced to leave work because of the pressure of their caring responsibilities at home. The fear is that, without clear guarantees, those carers may be deemed to have voluntarily left employment and then may be disqualified from JSA. Many people with caring responsibilities try to combine paid work with caring. An estimated 13 per cent. of all individuals in paid employment also have a caring responsibility. There are an estimated 3 million worker carers in the UK. Many working carers are excluded from the figure which was mentioned in the other place or are subsumed in that figure. Many of those working carers face intolerable stresses and strains in trying to combine their paid work with caring. Eventually, the strain can become too much and carers may be forced reluctantly to give up work altogether.
A survey by Caring Costs, an organisation which campaigns for an independent income for carers, showed that 53 per cent. of carers had given up work to care for a relation at home; 50 per cent. of carers who were still working experience increased stress as a result of their caring responsibilities; 28 per cent. said that the quality of their work had also suffered; and 40 per cent. were unsure whether they could combine paid work with caring.
Some carers who give up work to care will still want to be considered as jobseekers, but their claim may be affected if they are considered to have:
"voluntarily left … employment without just cause".
The purpose of the amendment is to find out from the Government whether their claim would be affected.
I am advised that the Carers National Association already receives telephone calls from carers who have been told that they have "left work voluntarily". However, as all the evidence illustrates, there is often no choice for carers who leave work either because they can no longer bear the strain of combining work and caring or their relation's care needs have increased. One has only to think of people caring for relations with Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease or other such conditions, to recognise that.
We believe that the Government should give some guarantee that a person who leaves work because of caring responsibilities will not be treated as voluntarily leaving work without just cause. The Carers National Association and Caring Costs have quoted a number of cases which I do not have time to quote but which illustrate extremely well the anxiety which exists on this matter. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give a satisfactory response. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend may care to reflect on the fact that, if the Committee agrees the amendment, there will be 12 occurrences in this clause alone of the expressions "without good cause" or "without just cause", I 1 of which he himself has drafted.
I strongly support the amendment, bearing in mind the current idea of moving people out of hospital as quickly as possible. Very often a relation at home may have to leave work in order to care for the person
1118
discharged. He or she may need care for some weeks. Once the period of caring is over, the individual will wish to return to work.
For instance, a schizophrenic, or someone who has a debilitating or disabling disease which occurs from time to time with greater or lesser severity, may need imtermittent care. Again, the carer may find that he has to move in and out of work to care for that relation. Another individual may have to care at home for a terminally ill relation, perhaps for an unknown period. It may be wiser to give up the job; alternatively, the firm for which the individual works may not wish him to continue on permanent unpaid leave and may have to get someone else in. The amendment, or some similarly worded provision, is essential.
Lord Inglewood: I appreciate the purpose underlying the amendment, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.
The concepts of good cause and just cause in relation to sanctions are well established. No sanction applies to refusing employment if the claimant had good cause for doing so, and no sanction applies to leaving a job voluntarily if the claimant had just cause for doing so.
The amendment would enable regulations under Clause 16(8) to prescribe circumstances in which a claimant has good cause for leaving employment to take up caring responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out, and it is worth reminding the Committee, in leaving voluntarily cases the claimant has to show just cause, rather than good cause, in order to escape a sanction. This has always been a tougher test under Governments from both sides of this House.
It may be sensible to refer only to just cause here. Guidance on just cause is at present contained in case law and the chief adjudication officer's guidance to adjudication officers. Claimants should avoid unnecessarily becoming a charge on the national insurance fund, and should normally seek to secure new employment before leaving their existing job. It has, however, long been recognised that a person's personal or domestic circumstances may become so urgent as to provide just cause for leaving without any regard to the question of other employment. That can, of course, include a sudden need to care for a close relation where there is no one else in the household to undertake the duty. An adjudication officer should consider each case on its merits, but case law already makes it clear that caring responsibilities can constitute just cause for leaving a job. When they do so, the claimant is not subject to a benefit sanction for leaving.
It is important that I point out that those responsibilities may in themselves cause doubts about the claimant's availability for work. People who are not available at all or who have substantial caring commitments are of course not in the labour market and cannot be eligible for JSA; the appropriate benefit for them will be invalid care allowance. There will, however, be other people whose caring responsibilities cause them to restrict the number of hours of work that they can do, but who can still play an effective part in the labour market.

1119
The present rules on restricted availability make no special provision for people in this position. I am, however, pleased to say that for JSA we shall allow people with caring responsibilities to restrict the number of hours for which they are available to less than the normal expectation of a minimum of 40 per week.
Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: Before I do so, the Minister used the phrase that the adjudication officer has to be satisfied that,
"there is no one else in the household to undertake the duty",
of care and responsibility. There were cases referred to in another place. Indeed, there was a television programme about the large number of children who act as carers. The responsibilities that they carry at times are quite horrifying.
Will the Minister confirm that the phrase "no one else in the household" will not be taken to mean that if there is a child of 10 or 12 in the household—and there are carers as young as that—the person should lose JSA?
Lord Inglewood: Under those circumstances they would not be included in the household.
Lord Carter: That is extremely helpful. We have it on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 15, line 3, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 156 and 156A are grouped together, the first is ours and the second is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall have to comment on both because in a sense they could be said to go in different directions, although both could go together.
Our Amendment No. 156 is to leave out subsection (9) which states:
"Subject to any regulations under subsection (8), in determining whether a person has, or does not have, good cause or (as the case may be) just cause for any act or omission, any matter relating to the level of remuneration in the employment in question shall be disregarded".
In other words, no applicant or would-be beneficiary could refuse the job on the grounds that the money is too low, however low it may be. We wish to take that out, it is quite unnecessary and I shall say why in a moment.
Presumably the noble Earl's amendment leaves that in and I am not sure what would happen if we were able to omit the subsection. The legislation provides that,
"the level of remuneration in the employment in question shall be disregarded".
Nevertheless, the noble Earl's amendment proposes that:
"regard shall be given, in the light of employment opportunities, to the person's education, training and experience".
I am happy to accept Amendment No. 156A if the Government reject Amendment No. 156, with which I am dealing. If subsection (9) were left in the Bill, as I understand it there is no limit to the kind of offer which could be made to an unemployed person, a jobseeker,
1120
which he could turn down on the grounds of the rate of pay and I accept that it is beyond the prescribed period. However, that cannot be right. It must be wrong to say that a person cannot turn down a job with an hourly rate below that of the JSA or lower than the hourly rate of the hardship allowance, if we work it out, or the lowest rate of income support, or any rate at all. What about a rate of 5p an hour? That cannot be right. Surely the Government do not mean that the level of remuneration after the prescribed period can be totally disregarded in deciding whether or not the offer of a job is reasonable. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 156 I should have reminded the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 156A or 157.
Earl Russell: I hasten to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that it is purely a matter of inadvertence that my name is not to his amendment. I intend to support it now. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 156A which I believe we agree is simply appalling.
Amendment No. 156 has got it right. First, the Government frequently tell us that they believe in a free market, but if there is to be any kind of free market one cannot have captive labour. That is what we have here. If labour is to be forced to take jobs at wages however low the employers choose to put them, we are preventing a free market from operating. That seems to me rather a mistake. If there is to be a lack of freedom in the market, it ought to apply to both sides, not just one.
Secondly, the Government are pickling a financial rod for their own back. We have a system of in-work benefits which is right, but it creates an incentive for the employer to push wages lower and lower in the hope that in-work benefits will make up the difference. It creates an invitation for the employer to free-load on the state. In a competitive world, people are subject to these pressures and may occasionally respond to them. The Government may find that this provision costs them a great deal more than they think it will. That is rather unwise.
Finally, even if the Minister cannot go any further, I hope that he can give us an assurance that people will not be required to take jobs which pay commission only. If you are looking for a job and you find work in, let us say, telesales, you may be under a very heavy pressure of commission incentive payments. One really ought not to force people to sweat their hearts out for a return of, if they are lucky, £1 or £2 a week, in a country which prides itself on some sort of freedom, both economic and political. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak from knowledge of a part of the country, Lancashire, where there is a very high incidence of low pay. Low pay is determined by government in terms of the need to supplement people's incomes.
In coastal resorts such as Blackpool advertisements are frequently seen for jobs in which, for a 40-hour week, people are offered less than £100. A case was

1121
cited today at a council meeting of a job requiring a mature person with experience, for a 40-hour week, offering £70. This sort of instance is bound to multiply if people are forced into such jobs.
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there comes a point where such jobs amount to slave labour. If the Minister argues that that will not be the case, he must then indicate what safeguard there is, what financial hurdle there is below which the jobseeker cannot be required to go.
In a reply at Question Time the other day, the Minister said (I believe these were his words) that there was no relationship between the income that people obtain from the jobs that are available and their ability to sustain their specific family circumstances. But surely it is essential that employers do not exploit people. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the situation is that people are now being forced into employment. In some parts of the country people will be particularly vulnerable. Sections of people are unemployed through no fault of their own but because the industry in which they work is one that has not yet recovered from the recession. An example is the construction industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the Government accept the level that is set within this amendment as an absolute minimum.
Lord Inglewood: This amendment, as was described, would remove Clause 16(9) which states that, except as prescribed, the level of remuneration cannot constitute a reason for matters such as turning down a job offer or leaving a job voluntarily. It would enable an adjudication officer to take the level of remuneration into account, determining for example whether a claimant had a good cause for refusing particular employment.
In fact, the Bill simply carries forward current provisions. The Benefits Act already provides that the level of remuneration cannot normally be adduced as good cause for refusing a job. The Government introduced this provision following the radical overhaul in 1988 of the benefits available to people in full-time work. Those benefits—family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, disability working allowance—enabled the great majority of people to be better off in work than remaining unemployed. Ministers provided worked examples to the committee in another place which clearly demonstrate that that is so.
This amendment seems to ignore the effect of in-work benefits. It is illogical for someone to be able to rely solely on the level of pay in a job as the reason for refusing to take it. Levels of pay take no account of family circumstances. In-work benefits do. The amendment would allow people with large families to trap themselves in unemployment indefinitely.
The 1994 IFS study showed no evidence that family credit influences wage levels. It helps over half a million families a week and has improved incentives significantly. That does not mean that we claim that the level of pay is completely irrelevant. The Bill contains two separate safeguards. First, we are carrying forward the concept of the permitted period. We believe that newly-unemployed people should be given a reasonable
1122
chance to return to their former type of work. Therefore, the Bill provides that people with a usual occupation have a permitted period of up to 13 weeks during which they cannot only refuse any other type of work, but also work in their usual occupation that pays less than they used to receive. Secondly, we have written into the Bill that the refusal of employment sanction can operate only if the job has been notified to the claimant by the employment officer. Ministers have made it quite clear that the Employment Service will not set out to offer people inappropriate jobs.
It is also the case that claimants cannot expect to hold out indefinitely for a level of pay that may simply be unrealistic, given their length of unemployment. As time goes on they will need to lower their expectations or they may be trapped in unemployment indefinitely. I hope and believe that these safeguards offer adequate protection. For those reasons I must oppose this amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Because it is late at night, or perhaps because the Minister has lost a piece of paper, what has been said is appalling. He has not given any answer. To refer back to 1988 is not a justification. What he means is that it has been going on for a long time, and it is dreadful. If it is said that there is no limit on what an unemployed person can say he will not accept after the prescribed period, that is appalling. To say that it has been going on since 1988 is no justification. We may as well say that we have been shooting them since 1988. If I hear him right, I think he says as much.
The Minister said that the benefits Act could not normally take levels of pay into account; in other words, exceptionally it did. Therefore, awful though it has been since 1988, it is not as awful as it is going to be. As I understand it, the clause says that it "shall be" disregarded, not "normally" disregarded. The Minister also talks about family circumstances and in-work benefit. What does that have to do with it? If he said that if there was sufficient in-work benefit and suitable family circumstances it would not be taken into account, he would not have much of a case but he would have a bit of a case. But the clause says "shall be disregarded", whether one has family or any other circumstances.
The fact is that they do not have any answer but they have no shame. One can think of dozens of examples. For example, one may have kids who are employed as waiters and are paid nothing but scruffy tips. Is that perfectly all right? If that happens and somebody says that he will not just be a waiter and get scruffy old tips, will he be told that he will have no JSA? Kids knock on my door to sell me pieces of rubbish. I have to buy it because they look so pathetic. Is that all right? I do not know whether or not they get any money, but as long as they get a farthing that will do. If they do not take that job they will have no JSA. This situation is absolutely appalling, and we will come back to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 156A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 15, line 6, at end insert ("; provided that the level of remuneration is at least equivalent to the level of jobseeker's allowance payable")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 157 pursues the same issue. However, in this case, to use a favourite phrase of the Government, the amendment is more precisely targeted on the issue of the interface with JSA allowances. It is not unreasonable to ask people, as part of a jobseeker's agreement, for what wage they are willing to work. We accept that that is a relevant piece of information. What is not reasonable is to deny people jobseeker's allowance on the grounds that the wage for which they are willing to work would make them worse off than they would be if they were on benefit.
The Government have repeatedly said—we heard it again on the last amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—that the level of pay is not a good reason for refusing work. I can only ask the Minister, given the examples quoted by my noble friends Lady Farrington and Lord McCarthy, what world they live in. What world do they live in? We are not talking about unrealistic pay expectations. Nobody is saying that it is reasonable to say, "I will only work for £20,000 a year" and that that is a reason for not accepting any job which pays less. The Government are telling us that it is entirely reasonable to accept a job which, by the Government's definition, pays below the poverty line—and a very low poverty line it is.
I accept—the Minister reminded us of it earlier tonight—that for those with children there is the in-work bonus of family credit. It is obviously right that those with children, who therefore need a higher income than those without children, should not thereby be priced out of the labour market. But, what we are doing there is helping them not by subsidising their wages (which would be quite improper) but subsidising the additional cost of having children, just as we do with child benefit, because that is a social responsibility. We are not asking them to price themselves out of the market in competition with single men and women.
We know that the Minister will tell us about the proposed piloting in some places of in-work benefit for childless people. We have already expressed reservations on that. But, at the moment, those without children (both single people and couples) have the alternative of income support and related benefits to low waged work. But they will not have it any more—not after this Bill has been passed. Wages have been falling, and the abolition of the wages councils has removed the checks on that, along with the growth of part-time jobs, commission-only jobs and the pay of those under 25. We know, and my noble friend Baroness Dean reminded the Committee of it much earlier, that 1 million people now earn less than £2.50 an hour. We know that 300,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour. A Manchester study last year showed that 50 per cent. of all jobs advertised in the local Jobcentres—I repeat 50 per cent.—paid less than £100 a week. Across the country, a third of those jobs advertised in Jobcentres paid less than £57 a week, which is the point at which one starts to pay the national insurance contribution.
On top of that is the fact that rents, council tax, fuel costs and the like have not been falling while wages have been falling. So, those very low wages for those with children have had to be topped up with additional payments from housing benefit and council tax benefit. But at least until now income support served as a basic floor below which wages could not descend because the choice remained with the unemployed whether to accept a job or income support. It was a threshold below which wages could not fall.
If people are required to work for wages below income support and associated benefits, especially if you ensure the prospect that wages will be topped up by the state, the situation becomes very simple: employers can pitch wages wherever they wish, knowing that the state will pick up the bill and subsidise their wages for them. The Minister shakes his head but that is absolutely right. That is why it is so pernicious. At the same time that the Minister is privatising public responsibilities and passing them on to business, such as sickness and related problems, the Government are nationalising what should be a private or commercial responsibility; namely, the payment of wages. It is quite remarkable.
Why do the Government believe that the cost of in-work benefits has doubled in the past four years and now stands at £2.4 billion? One in 50 of the workforce now claims in-work benefits such as family credit. One in seven of those in catering, cleaning and hairdressing—the old wages council industries—now claim family credit. With the abolition of wages council industries those jobs no longer pay a living wage. It is quite remarkable. Here are the Government seeking to save £140 million in cuts in JSA while at the same time transposing costs onto other in-work benefits such as family credit, which will cost us all as taxpayers infinitely more than the Government will save in their costs through the Jobseekers Bill. They are willing to throw public money at employers to allow them to cut wages where they will. Instead of a problem of a dependency on benefits out of work, we will have created a new problem of dependency on benefits in work.
This policy of the Government's can only be justified on two grounds: first, where the employer really needs to face additional costs or needs subsidy to take on particular groups of working people. He may need help with aids for the physically handicapped. He may need help with a recognition of low productivity for those with learning disabilities. He may need a bonus to coax the long-term unemployed into work. We accept that there can be special circumstances and we do not object to that.
The second reason is to lower wage levels to increase the total supply of jobs available and thus take more people off social security. Is this second reason valid? There is no evidence for that and much evidence to the contrary. All that happens is labour substitution. No more people are employed but cheaper people may be employed, as has happened with compulsory competitive tendering. Because they are dissatisfied with work and pay conditions, there is a rapid turnover and there is no incentive to train them or keep them. Indeed, the Low Pay Unit found that employment in hotels actually fell after the wages councils were

1125
abolished. Overall, the number of jobs covered by the former wages councils has fallen by 18,000 between September 1993 and March 1994.
The argument of labour substitution and increased competition does not generate more jobs. It simply generates more profits for employers to distribute to shareholders and in options. All the evidence from Europe is that without a minimum wage to underpin the job market the Government are throwing taxpayers' money at the employer as an invitation for him to put wages where he will, knowing that the taxpayer will pick up the rest of the bill. If this week, this month and this year we are cutting JSA, the next Bill we will have to pass, because the Government will require it, is one to cap in-work benefits, which will have escalated, much to the Government's surprise, because of the workings of this one.
We object because the Bill will either push up DSS benefits or, if one cannot claim those benefits because of the 16 or 24-hour rule, it will require the single person or the couple to live well below the poverty level. Neither of those options—desperate poverty or a wage bill subsidised by the taxpayer—is acceptable. Of a pernicious Bill, this is one of the most pernicious aspects of the entire jobseeker's allowance. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: When the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was replying to the last amendment and was talking about being compelled on pain of losing JSA to live on scruffy tips, I was very much encouraged to see the Minister shake his head. Perhaps I may invite him to put on record the reasons why he shook his head and whether those will cover the question of commission only, about which I asked him.
The point that the noble Baroness made about the lower earnings limit in national insurance is particularly important. Just as in-work benefits without a floor under wages are a financial laxity for any government, so forcing people to take jobs which pay below the lower earnings limit for national insurance is a financial swollen throat so bad that it is impossible to swallow.
When we looked at the statement about the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement last month, it was interesting to note that what was falling short was not spending rising faster than expected, but revenues not rising as fast as expected. I have a Question for Written Answer asking under what headings that shortfall happened. The point which the noble Baroness has made prompts me to ask the Minister whether he will look at the Answer to that Question and see how much of the shortfall is in national insurance. How much of that shortfall is the direct result of government policy?
Lord Inglewood: It seems to us that the amendment is based on the belief that the Bill is designed to force people into work that would leave them worse off than staying unemployed. In fact, as I described before, the Bill simply carries forward the current provisions under Section 28(5) of the Benefits Act which I have already mentioned.
1126
We have heard a considerable amount of hypothesis from the noble Baroness opposite. I wish to reiterate what I said during the debate on the previous amendment that the 1994 IFS study showed no evidence that family credit influences wage levels. That is important because it cuts at the basis of a very great deal of what the noble Baroness argued for. Equally—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The reason that family credit affects wage levels is that the person with children may very well be in competition with someone who can turn to income support. At present where that is not the case their wages will be pushed down and family credit will have to pick up the strain.
Lord Inglewood: I do not accept that. Let us have some economics from our side of the Committee. If we are to pay people they have to earn it and that can only be done with competitive business. That is the key to ensuring that we get a decent standard of living throughout the country which is as high as we can possibly make it. When one considers take-home pay in this country and the cost of living is taken into account, take-home pay in the United Kingdom is among the highest in Europe. The take-home pay for the bottom 10 per cent. of full-time wage distribution is now 23 per cent. higher in real terms for a single man than in 1979. It fell by 1 per cent. under Labour. The important point here is that we must have an effective labour market.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: What about the bottom 10 per cent.?
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may continue. We must have an effective labour market because that is what will achieve the desired improvement in our economic performance. That is one of the fundamental principles behind the Bill. Let us not forget that we have to go back and look at the context in which this matter is set. We are talking about Clause 16(9). A great deal of what has been referred to by Members of the Committee in talking about pay flows much wider than pay and goes to the very heart of the job itself. If the circumstances described are sufficiently severe to fall within the scope of good cause and just cause, then it is perfectly reasonable for the person concerned to refuse the job.
As I said earlier, one cannot expect to continue looking indefinitely for a job doing the kind of thing originally wanted, at the level of pay desired. One must widen the job search.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord saying that, despite what is on the face of the Bill about totally disregarding pay after the permitted period, somehow he has found somewhere in the Bill where one can say, "I shall not take a job because the money is too low"?
Lord Inglewood: No. The kinds of things which were being described went much further than that, did they not? If it is unreasonable for someone to take that job then the good cause/just cause provisions come into play.
Lord McCarthy: This whole arrangement, which is insupportable, must be an arrangement which does not include pay because pay has been taken out. But there cannot be a whole arrangement if pay has been taken out.
Lord Inglewood: Pay is the amount of money that we are talking about, but there are also the terms and conditions of the job. Some of the examples that have been given may have had a bearing on pay, such as if someone is working on a commission-only basis, but it is not merely a question of pay. Other matters are involved—
Lord McCarthy: So is the noble Lord saying that you can refuse a job because it is too dark and too smelly and because you cannot get your bike in, but you cannot refuse a job because the pay is bad?
Lord Inglewood: No. The noble Lord seems deliberately to be misunderstanding the point that I was making. As I made clear in responding to the previous amendment, the Employment Service will not set out to offer people inappropriate jobs. If the job is inappropriate, it is perfectly in order for the person concerned to refuse it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister clarify one point? If you are a single person or a couple without children and therefore do not qualify for family credit and no in-work additional top-up will be available, is it appropriate to refuse a job which pays you less than you are currently living on when on JSA? Yes or no?
Lord Inglewood: No, I am not going to give a straight answer to that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We bet you're not!
Lord Inglewood:—because a whole variety of other circumstances have a bearing on the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What other circumstances would have a bearing on a pay level which is below income support?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness refers to a series of hypothetical situations and is giving incomplete examples—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No!
Lord Inglewood: Yes you are! Like the amendments that we have just been discussing, this amendment ignores the effect of in-work benefits and the safeguards that are contained in the Bill which I have already described at some length. For that reason, I urge your Lordships to oppose it.
Earl Russell: Now that the Minister has sat down, this is a point of considerable importance and I think that we are entitled to ask for clarification. The Minister said that the Employment Service will not make people take inappropriate jobs. That must mean jobs which appear to the Employment Service to be inappropriate. The Employment Service, like the rest of us, is not infallible. If the Employment Service is going to judge appropriateness, we need to understand the criteria that
1128
it will use. Is it or is it not the case that one could refuse to take a job because the pay is too low or, in a commission-only case, because there is no pay at all?
I should like to ask the Minister one other question which would enable me not to speak to my other amendment. It relates to part-time work. A person may be required to take a job which lasts for fewer than 40 hours a week. How many fewer? I understand that the present law specifies 24 hours. Is that going to remain the case or is it not?
I have another point of considerable importance on which I should like to dwell for a moment while the process of osmosis takes place. Many people may be penalised for refusing to take part-time jobs which pay a very small amount of money because of benefit penalties which are a very great deal greater than the amount of money that they would have received from the job. That appears to me to be a rather excessive punishment and, whenever the Minister is in a position to do so, I should be extremely grateful if he could reply to my questions.
Lord Inglewood: The effect of current regulations is that people are not subject to sanction for refusing an offer of employment or for neglecting to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of employment if the employment concerned is for fewer than 24 hours a week. I can assure the Committee that the Government intend to continue that broad approach. People who refuse work that takes up fewer than 24 hours a week will not normally be subject to sanction. I hope that that gives a general reply to the noble Earl's question.
Turning to the other matters, the Employment Service operates in a reasonable manner—that is axiomatic to the debate—and, as I have already mentioned, it is not going to bring forward jobs which it considers inappropriate.
We have discussed many hypothetical examples which have not been fully fleshed out. While we may disagree about what would be inappropriate or reasonable, without having a full description of such cases it will not be constructive for me to try to give the Committee any lead about it. I dare say that in certain respects there is an unbridgeable gulf between us. Nonetheless, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have two points to raise. First, the Minister seems to think that he has said something significant when he dismisses an argument as being hypothetical, or dealing with a hypothesis. What the Minster calls a hypothesis is what we are trying to predict will be the consequences of the legislation. To refuse to discuss that is to take his legislation out of the real world and away from the people it will affect, and to deal with it—if I may use the term perhaps inappropriately—in an academic sense.
This is a Bill which will affect real people. We seek to predict some of the consequences of the legislation. Whenever we do so, the Minister, in desperation, uses the word "hypothetical". Of course it is hypothetical. It must be hypothetical because the Bill is not yet law, thank God! But when it is, it will affect real people. It will not be hypothetical. We fear that many of the things

1129
we have predicted will come to pass, therefore I hope that the Minister will not regard the word "hypothesis" as taking the argument one step further, but will try instead to address the issue.
We accept entirely that there may be people, and there were people, with children who can accept a wage that may be below, say, income support level, because it will be topped up by family credit. The Minister said that is not a real problem, because there are in-work benefits. But the case I put to him excluded such people. I am talking about a single person, or a couple, without children, not entitled to any in-work benefits such as family credit. Is the Minister saying that as part of the JSA such people should accept a job which pays below JSA level, knowing that they will be worse off? We must push the Minister on that point. Will a single person, or a couple, who will not receive a family credit in-work benefit be required to accept a job that pays less than the JSA? Should such people willingly make themselves financially worse off?
Will the Minister please answer that simple question? It is not difficult. It was asked in the other place on many occasions. The Minister well knows what the question is. So far the Minister has regularly ducked, weaved and failed to answer it. We, and the people outside, are entitled to that explanation. Are they expected to work at a wage below the poverty level of income support, knowing that it cannot be topped up by family credit if they do not have children?
Lord Inglewood: I merely reiterate what I said before. No one should be allowed to hold out indefinitely for a given level of pay. The noble Baroness gives examples which she says are not hypothetical, and yet they are hypothetical because we are not changing current provision. She has not given a concrete example from the current arrangements. We do not believe it appropriate to insert minimum wage levels in this provision. It is clear that there is a gulf between us.
Lord Swinfen: I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that in the selling of cars in the motor industry there are a number of jobs with no salary, just commission. At certain times there is little likelihood of commission, because the newest person in will be the most junior who will not have built up a client base of his own. There will also be the temptation for employers to take on people at salaries lower than the state will pay.
I am sure that my noble friend realises that no one will be willing to accept a job paying less than the state will pay on benefit, because the person probably cannot afford it. He may well have a mortgage and commitments of one kind or another, all of which need to be taken into account. There are questions arising not just from the car industry but in other industries where the commission can be hefty, but it may be many months before one earns commission.
Lord Inglewood: The point about in-work benefits is that they are designed to make people better off than they would be if they were dependent wholly on the state. That is a crucial characteristic which cuts across the argument which my noble friend is making in that
1130
regard. As I said, we do not believe that it is appropriate to insert into this provision a minimum wage level. Therefore, that gulf exists between us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister please tell us to which in-work benefits a single person or a childless couple may be entitled, apart from housing and council tax benefits?
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps my noble friend will agree to consider this matter between now and the next stage. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee wish him to do that. He does not have to commit himself to anything but surely he will agree to consider the matter with his advisers.
Lord Inglewood: I shall certainly give the matter consideration but our position is very clear. We do not believe that it is appropriate to include in the Bill any form of minimum remuneration level.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister answer my question? Which benefits are available to a single person or a childless couple? Which benefits does the Minister have in mind?
Lord Inglewood: Very few people in that category are worse off in work, but we have plans to pilot a new benefit for that group, as the noble Baroness knows.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I know that there may be pilot schemes in some areas but other people outside those areas will not be eligible for that benefit. Will the Minister please answer my question? To which benefits will a single person or a childless couple in work be entitled?
Lord Inglewood: I have already replied to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has done many things but he has not replied. At the end of this debate the Minister is accepting that he has no answer. From a sedentary position the other Minister says that he has an answer but we do not like it. The answer that we have been given is that a single person or a childless couple shall be required, may be required, or can be required to accept a wage for a job which is below the jobseekers' allowance. The Minister then says that to his surprise we do not like that answer.
The two Ministers should be ashamed of that answer. It is all right for us because we are all here. But the Ministers are saying that people out there without children may be required to work for a wage which even the Government recognise is below poverty levels and below income support levels. They then have the gall to say that there is a difference between us and that we are being unreasonable in failing to accept those answers.
That is truly, truly pernicious. I would use stronger language but parliamentary conventions prevent my doing so. I should be surprised if Members of the Committee can sleep comfortably tonight if they are willing to allow people to work for a wage below income support levels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 15, line 7, at end insert:
("() "employment" means employment of 24 hours or more per week in either employed earners employment or self-employment.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier, even though it was not grouped with his amendment. It relates to the 24-hour rule. We would like assurances from the Minister regarding two situations. First, we would like to know whether those currently unemployed and seeking full-time work but who refuse part-time work will be sanctioned if they refuse part-time work of under 24 hours. Secondly, if someone gives up part-time work of under 24 hours, we would like to know whether he or she can be sanctioned. The Minister said that we are dealing in hypotheticals. Perhaps I may tell him about a case reported by the CAB. It concerns an unemployed man in his late 50s in Yorkshire who was doing a paper round for £5 a week which he was allowed to keep without jeopardising benefit because it was part of the disregard of income support. The man gave up the paper round because of bad weather during the winter. He had his benefit sanctioned by £18.30 for giving up a £5 a week newspaper round. That was a genuine case produced by the CAB; it is not a hypothetical one. It relates to something that already happens.
If the Government propose to sanction people for giving up part-time work, such people would be very wise not to accept that work. In the process they may fail to do what Members on both sides of the Committee wish them to do; namely, to regain access to the labour market. Therefore, can the Minister reassure us that those currently unemployed and seeking full-time work but who refuse work of under 24 hours' duration will not be sanctioned and that those currently in part-time work of under 24 hours will also not be sanctioned if they stop such work. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: As I explained previously, the effect of current regulations is that people are not subject to sanction for refusing an offer of employment or for neglecting to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of employment if the employment concerned is for fewer than 24 hours a week. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government intend to continue that broad approach. People who refuse work of less than 24 hours a week will not normally be subject to sanctions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In view of the Minister's response, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemptions from section 16]:
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 164 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 164A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Carers of children under the age of two
For the purposes of this Act no person who is a mother nursing her child or a parent with the main caring responsibility for a child under two years of age shall be required to seek for, or to accept, employment other than the employment of caring for his or her child in order to qualify for the jobseekers allowance.").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that I was not able to be present at Second Reading. However, I believe that the amendment, which is a probing amendment, raises a point of importance about which we need to have information regarding the Government's intentions.
There is substantial and increasing evidence to show that the quality of parenting in the first two years of a child's life is extremely important for emotional stability and for the child's sense of self-worth. Without them, children tend to have problems when they go to school and they also have problems with their personal relationships. That can, and very often does, lead to disruptive behaviour, problems of truanting, juvenile crime and so on; and, indeed, poor job prospects in the future. Therefore, it is very costly to the state and to society for children not to have an appropriate start in life.
There is also growing evidence that bonding between a child and its mother or surrogate mother, which may include the father, takes place in the first weeks of a child's life. The sense of predictability, security and love which a bonded relationship with a parent, or with a surrogate parent, gives to a child is fundamental to that child's successful rearing. All but the best childcare is a poor substitute for the latter; but the best childcare can, of course, be an appropriate substitute.
Caring for a one year-old or a two year-old child is a tough job. Giving each child a good start in life is surely an enormously important job for society and yet many mothers and fathers want to do it. This amendment does not force any mother or father to stay at home and look after their child; it merely enables them to do so without suffering a penalty if they want to do so. This amendment is gender neutral although I have taken the risk of suggesting that breast feeding would probably be undertaken by the mother. It would be perverse if this Government, who claim to care about children and about families, were to prevent parents, through economic sanctions, from giving their children the parenting they need through the functioning of this legislation. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for reasons additional to those he has already given, which I share. This is a group of jobseekers for whom it is particularly difficult to meet the directions that may be associated with a jobseeker's agreement. Any mother of a young child knows how difficult it is to move by public transport from one area to another carrying or dragging young children after one. The person concerned may not easily be able to get care from other quarters. It is often difficult to arrange

1133
childcare to meet the requirements of a job, especially if childcare or nursery arrangements simply do not fit in with the hours of that job. It is difficult to take night work and it is difficult to take weekend work. There are many difficulties that arise for parents of young children in this regard.
In addition to the arguments put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, there is a whole set of other arguments as regards parents of young children and their problems with meeting directions under a jobseeker's agreement, unless we have a full assurance from the Minister that no such directions will be made that are incompatible with caring for children of a young age. I do not think that it will be easy to do that. Therefore I suggest that the Government might want to look sympathetically at this amendment and the spirit in which it has been moved.
Lord Carter: There is a point as regards this amendment which we can discuss. It would be helpful if the Minister can clarify this when he replies. I think I am correct in saying that the current position is that a mother with a working partner, or no partner, is given 24 hours' notice in which to take up a job offer, and therefore would have to have the childcare lined up in preparation for being offered a job, and she could well be asked about this by the Employment Service adviser. This would be particularly unsatisfactory with regard to a child under two years of age, as the mother or the responsible parent may not have a trusted child minder or a relative with whom to leave such a young child at 24 hours' notice. It would be helpful if the Minister could reply to that point.
Lord Inglewood: Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is prominent in this field as vice chairman of the all-parliamentary group on parenting, and has been very much involved in establishing the Parenting Forum for parenting, education and support, that we recognise the role people with caring responsibilities can play in the labour market and that we have taken this into account in drawing up the JSA proposals. I cannot stress strongly enough, however, that JSA is for jobseekers and it is important that all unemployed people claiming JSA can fulfil the labour market conditions. This is an underlying principle of any unemployment benefit. In order to receive JSA, jobseekers will have to be able and willing to participate in the labour market.
In order to receive JSA, claimants will have to be available for and actively seeking employment. For the first time we are introducing an easement of the availability rule for jobseekers with caring responsibilities. We will set out in regulations that people with caring responsibilities will be able to restrict the hours of their availability because of these responsibilities. Carers will also, as will all jobseekers, be able to place restrictions on their availability, in terms of the location or type of work, provided that they still retain reasonable prospects of securing employment. I think that goes a long way to answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
1134
It is essential that jobseekers should actively look for employment while they are in receipt of JSA. We recognise that all jobseekers are individuals and should be treated as such. Each individual will have different circumstances and it is important to reflect in legislation that different steps may be appropriate and reasonable in different situations. That applies to carers as it does to others.
Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords about our intention that, as now, a determination as to whether someone has met the actively seeking employment condition must be taken with regard to all the circumstances of the case, including caring responsibilities. One has to be actively seeking work, but in a way which may be different from the general case because of the caring responsibilities.
I should like to reassure the Committee that we value very highly the contribution made by parents who choose to devote their time to raising their children. We encourage flexible working patterns that enable parents to raise their children and participate in the labour market.
There is a wide range of benefits available for parents with caring responsibilities for very young children, including statutory maternity pay, child benefit and income support for lone parents. Let me make it clear that, where a lone parent claims income support, he or she will not be required to be available for or actively seeking work. Where a couple have children and one or both of the partners works, family credit is available for families with earnings below a certain level. These benefits recognise that families with children face additional costs compared with other families.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, can the Minister answer directly the question that I put to him? Is it the case that a mother with a working partner or no partner has to have a child minder lined up so that if she is offered a job she can take it up at 24 hours' notice?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, it is.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I wonder whether the noble Lord has ever tried looking after a one year-old child alone. Does he suggest that that is not a job?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is hypothetical.
Lord Inglewood: I believe that we can say with confidence that it is not; after all, we are all here. This is a matter of the definition of "actively seeking work" and being "available for work" which we went into at some length on a previous occasion. I do not say that because the noble Lord was not present.
Lord Northbourne: In that case, I think the noble Lord is saying that one has to be seeking paid work. Therefore, the effect of the scheme will be that the parent will have to seek paid work away from the home

1135
and then somebody else will seek the job of being the carer. That seems to me to be remarkably daft and certainly not in the best interests of the child.
Lord Inglewood: The key point about the JSA is that the first priority of the jobseeker is to get a job. JSA is for jobseekers. It is important that all those who claim JSA, including those with care responsibilities, are available for and actively seeking employment. For those who do not want to seek employment there is the income support system, which stands in parallel. That is the important distinction here. This Bill relates to people who want to seek work. In the "available for work" and "actively seeking work" conditions, special provisions are being introduced for carers.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I suggest that looking after a one year-old child is employment. However, I should like to consider the legislation and possibly to bring the matter back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 165:
Page 32, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) for occupational or personal pensions to be disregarded, in the case of a disabled person.").
The noble Lord said: As it is late, I shall leave this matter until the next stage.
[Amendment No, 165 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 33, line 5, at end insert:
("Claims yet to be determined and suspended payments
.—(1) 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.
(2) In such circumstances as may be prescribed, an income-based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable to a claimant even though payment to him of a jobseeker's allowance has been suspended by virtue of regulations under section 5(1) (n) of the Administration Act.
(3) A jobseeker's allowance shall only be payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) if the claimant has complied with such requirements as to the provision of information as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(4) Regulations may make provision for a jobseeker's allowance payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) to be—

(a) payable at a prescribed rate;

(b) payable for a prescribed period;

(c) treated as being a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance for the purposes of section 5 of this Act.

(5) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for the recovery, by prescribed means and in prescribed circumstances, of the whole or part of any amount paid by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2);

(b) for the whole or part of any amount paid by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) to be treated, if an award is made on the claim referred to there, as having been paid on account of the jobseeker's allowance awarded;

1136

(c) for the whole or part of any amount paid by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) to be treated, if the suspension referred to there is lifted, as having been paid on account of the suspended allowance.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 167A makes good a deficiency in the Bill. The Bill as it currently stands allows hardship payments to be made only once a decision has actually been made on whether the claimant meets the labour market conditions. As we have discussed on a number of occasions, we wish to extend protection to vulnerable groups during the decision-making process by making hardship payments available to them pending a decision on their entitlement, and to all claimants if the decision-making process lasts more than two weeks.
The amendment allows for reduced-rate income-based JSA to be paid to claimants during all or part of the adjudication process. At the beginning of the claim that will be where the adjudication officer is deciding on whether the claimant is available for work or actively seeking work, or on the terms of a jobseeker's agreement.
If the claim is already running, subparagraph (2) allows for payments to be made if a question arises during a claim over the claimant's availability for work, or on whether he is actively seeking work and benefit has been suspended.
The amendment fulfils our commitment to make provision for hardship payments during the decision-making process. I recognise that our intentions for the use of the regulation-making powers do not go so far as some noble Lords would like, but I hope that they will nevertheless support the amendment which will be used to regulate for payments to all claimants in vulnerable groups throughout the period of adjudication, and to other claimants after the initial two weeks. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I ask only one question. The amendment goes a little way towards meeting some of the points raised. Can he say a few words on subsection (5) (a) which provides,
"for the recovery, by prescribed means and in prescribed circumstances"?
Is it widely envisaged that these sums will be recovered subsequent to the claimant receiving work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I discussed the matter in relation to an earlier amendment. I said that the question of recovery did not have a very good history. It is difficult to administer. At the time I believe that I suggested—I cannot remember the terms—that we should not pay on account and try to claw it back.
It is difficult to administer. It is not easy. We do not like to do that if we can possibly avoid it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("or not responsible").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple probe. It would be helpful if the Minister can assist us. The purpose of the amendment is to seek an answer from the Government. The income support regulations were amended, under the equivalent power in Section 137 of

1137
the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, so as to treat the parent in receipt of child benefit as being responsible for the child and no one else being so responsible. That means that the other parent who is not "responsible" cannot obtain benefit for the child during any period—I refer to school holidays, the sickness of the responsible parent, or other circumstances which all of us as parents can envisage—that he or she has the child living with him or her because the "responsible" parent is unable to look after the child.
It would be helpful to hear whether our understanding of the situation is correct. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to explain this provision. It is not new. It carries forward provisions currently contained in Section 137(2) (m) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. As in many areas of this Bill, we intend to make the same use of the power as is currently made in income support.
The regulations will largely cover those cases where a child or young person spends part of the week with each parent. In these cases, income-based JSA in respect of the child will normally be paid in full to the partner receiving child benefit, regardless of the number of days the child or young person spends with each parent. I believe that this is the right approach.
I am sure that most of the Members of the Committee will agree that it is not appropriate for the department to get deeply involved in the private affairs of people to whom it pays benefit. It is the responsibility of the adults concerned to share the benefit between them if they wish to do so.
The alternative would be for us to try to split the benefit to take account of the number of days the child spends with each parent. This was the procedure under supplementary benefit and was, I am advised, an administrative nightmare. In some cases benefit had to be adjusted every week.
I believe that this power provides for a sensible treatment of these difficult cases. It recognises that the parents involved must be responsible for caring for the child or children, and must reach agreement over the financial arrangements for doing so. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall read what the Minister said. I do not think that it meets the real problems I described. However, I understand the point the Minister made about administrative problems. I wish to read what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clauses 19 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [The back to work bonus]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 18, line 47, after ("allowance") insert (", incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 173, with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 174 and 175. The first of the amendments seeks to extend the back-to-work bonus to more people than those who are in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance, particularly to disabled people and carers.
Under current rules, people can work part-time and claim benefit and some of their earnings can be ignored. Most people can keep up to £5 per week or £10 per couple before their benefit is reduced. People with a disability premium can keep up to £15 per week. The jobseekers White Paper indicated that the back-to-work bonus is designed to provide incentives for, and ease the transition into, full-time work of people who are or who have been on jobseeker's allowance or income support. Based on every pound of earnings someone has above the £5 limit, a claimant can build up a credit of 50 pence which will be payable in a lump sum up to a maximum of £1,000 when the claimant moves into employment of 16 hours or more each week or when their partner moves into employment of more than 24 hours a week. Someone can qualify for a back-to-work bonus once they have been employed for three months. The amendment suggests extending the provisions to people on incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance.
The purpose of Amendment No. 173 is to extend the employer's national insurance holiday to people who are out of work as a result of incapacity for work or caring responsibilities. The Bill includes provision for a one-year national insurance holiday for employers recruiting someone who has been unemployed for at least two years as part of a package of work incentives. The amendment seeks to extend the provision to carers and disabled people not—I emphasise "not"—signing on as available for work but claiming invalid care allowance or incapacity benefits. Surely, the case for tackling the employment disadvantage faced by disabled people is equally as pressing to the long-term unemployed. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 in the names of myself and my noble friend Lady Hollis. The amendments deal with the extension of the national insurance holiday for employers to former carers as well as the long-term unemployed. The arguments are much the same as those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The purpose is to extend to former carers as well as the long-term unemployed the national insurance holiday for employers. That can be done by linking the scheme to periods of receipt of the invalid care allowance (ICA) and not just the jobseeker's allowance.
The carers who are entitled to ICA will not appear as registered unemployed because they are exempted from signing on. As the rules stand, therefore, we feel that many former carers will miss out on the scheme. I understand that the Government have expressed sympathy with the issue. They suggested that the problem is of administration rather than principle and I believe that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, Mr. William Hague, has said that he

1139
will look into the issue. Without going through all the statistics, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee how far the consideration has gone.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish to address Amendment No. 170 first. The main participants in the scheme will be unemployed people on jobseeker's allowance and lone parents on income support. Disabled people on income support will be able to participate and any earnings above the £15 disregard will count towards the scheme. Any disabled person who claims jobseeker's allowance and makes himself available for work can also benefit from the scheme.
However, we do not see a case at this stage for extending the scheme to the other benefits proposed in the amendment. This new initiative is about helping people who are in the labour market and who need help to get into a job. People who are receiving incapacity benefit and SDA are claiming those benefits on the basis that they are incapable of work. If they are able to undertake therapeutic work, their earnings disregard is the not inconsiderable sum of £44 a week.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 173, 174 and 175, the clause already contains a power to extend by regulations the scope of the national insurance holiday to include people receiving the benefits referred to in these amendments.
The national insurance holiday is intended to provide an incentive to all employers to provide job opportunities for the long-term unemployed. It is essentially aimed at making more attractive to employers those people who may have become demotivated by their inability to find work. This means that it is aimed at helping back into work people who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it rather than those who have been incapable of work.
On Amendments Nos. 174 and 175, we considered whether ex-carers who received income support throughout the qualifying period should be able to qualify for the NI holiday. Carers may be distinguished from people receiving an incapacity benefit in that they were capable of work and would have been in a job but for the caring. We acknowledge that, and I am therefore pleased to tell the Committee that we intend that ex-carers who have received income support should fall within the scope of the national insurance holiday.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his reply, which I shall consider when I read it in Hansard later. I may return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No, 171 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 19, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) the amount of a bonus to take account of the travel to work distances of persons who may be entitled to a bonus;").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to confirm that the regulations made under this clause provide for the amount of the back-to-work bonus to take into account travel-to-work distances and to ask what are the Government's intentions in that regard.
The issue of travel-to-work distance arises most acutely in respect of jobs in rural areas. In the absence of jobs in their immediate vicinity, rural jobseekers have to contend with serious practical difficulties in terms of time and cost in travelling to would-be job opportunities.
I was encouraged by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and what my noble friend Lady Trumpington is signalling at the moment on Amendment No. 150.1 beg to move.
Lord Carter: Perhaps it will help the noble Baroness if I tell her that I have a three-page brief here and I want to read every word of it!
The response to Amendment No. 150 appeared to indicate that the travel-to-work problem will be taken into account. This is particularly acute, as we know, in rural areas because of the lack of transport, the distance from jobs and so forth. Therefore I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. And I hope that that pleases the noble Baroness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have a much longer brief than that, because initially we were not very sure what my noble friend meant by his amendment. Happily, I now know and I shall try to answer him.
Of course I understand that unemployed people may hesitate to take up work that involves a significant travelling distance and expense. However, I believe that the bonus scheme will help claimants to take jobs which are some distance from home. It can, for example, be difficult to meet the cost of a new season ticket before receiving the first wage packet. The bonus will provide a lump sum to help the claimant with that initial expense. That scheme, in tandem with the other incentives such as housing benefit and council tax benefit run-on, ought to provide financial security at the beginning of a new job. I do not believe that we should go further than that and relate the level of bonus payments to the distance that the claimant has to travel.
The bonus scheme will provide clear incentives to people to take work while on benefit and will encourage them to move off benefit. It will give them cash at that difficult point of transition. I hope that my noble friend can therefore withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I indeed beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I reserve my right to return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Employment of long-term unemployed: deductions by employers]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 174 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 19, line 47, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the only other good clause in the Bill; namely, on the employment of the long-term unemployed. It is significant that when something is done for them, they are called "the unemployed". They are not "long-term jobseekers". Thank God for that!
The object of our amendment is to make the provision even better than it is. The object of Clause 24 is a worthy one; namely, to reduce national insurance obligations to employers who take on any of the half million unemployed who have been unemployed for more than two years. The amendment aims to go further and reduce it to one year so that one million workers will be covered by the amendment rather than the half-million covered by the Bill. The reason why we are doing this is quite simple. This is the only part of the Bill that does something for the unemployed. It is true that it is not job creation, which the Government used to do in the early 'eighties, but is job redistribution and preference. It favours the long-term unemployed as against the non-long-term unemployed. On the whole, we are dealing with men without qualifications. Their unemployment rate is twice as high. Many of them are over 50 and have no spouse who works. They have been unemployed for a very long time. All we can do for them if we do not pass this amendment is pray. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The proposed national insurance holiday for employers—which I am pleased to hear the noble Lord welcomes—is an incentive to them to take on people who have been long-term unemployed. We chose two years as the qualifying period simply to focus help on this particular group, who obviously find themselves in an even more difficult position than, say, the one-year or one-and-a-half-year unemployed. The deadweight costs will be less than extending the scheme to those who have been out of work for one year. A considerable number of people find work between the one and two-year positions. The amendments would increase the scope of the scheme by including people who have been unemployed for between one and two years.
This can be done in two ways. If we stayed within the £45 million earmarked for this, the holiday would last for only eight weeks. I do not think that that would be very effective. If we did it the other way and simply paid for the reduction to one year, it would cost about £200 million. That is more than we judge we can afford to put into this particular scheme. We want to use the £45 million to concentrate on the two-year-long unemployed. In a number of previous debates the Benches opposite and I have agreed that those people are in the most difficult position of all. I therefore believe it is right that we should target this reasonable benefit on that particularly difficult group. While I appreciate that the noble Lord would like to be much more generous, I hope he accepts that perhaps the importance of targeting overrides that.
Lord McCarthy: I do not expect anything else at this time of night, or at any other time. We shall have to have a Labour government and then we will do far more. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174B and 175 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Pilot Schemes]:
[Amendments Nos.l75A to 177B not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I have made no attempt to claim my ration of time but I have not become a Trappist monk. This is the Motion on which I want to raise a few points.
Clause 27 came in without a consultation process. We do not yet understand it. It replaces what used to be a government statutory duty to provide resettlement units. It replaces it with a discretionary power to fund resettlement places. I know that this is connected with the transfer of units, but there is no necessary reason why the Schedule 5 funding, on which resettlement units presently depend, should stop.
There is certainly a fear of it. An article in Inside Housing of January this year states:
"No one is suggesting funding will be immediately withdrawn. The agency is officially keen to stress that there will be cash in the future. But some agency sources claim the Government will quickly cut spending on resettlement, and then scrap it altogether. The move threatens more than 200 projects in the long term".
That is why I am trying to replace this clause with an amendment that would continue a duty in a form which I hope is reasonably satisfactory to the Government. I shall ask them—because it relates to the whole matter of Clause 27—to think a little more about the effect of the Bill on the homeless.
Take, for example, Clause 6(3), referring to a person's appearance. One cannot expect the homeless to keep to that requirement in the way that others might. I hope that that is understood by the Government. My noble friend Lady Seear once referred to the homeless who have to sleep rough being required to turn up to look for work in clothes in which a noble Lord would not garden. I hope that the homeless are not going to be judged not to be actively seeking work if that happens.
The requirement to find accommodation, which is imposed on the homeless when they are claiming, is extremely discouraging when there is no accommodation to find. In fact, there are too many cases of people faced with that condition who simply give up looking. One example is that of a man who had been 30 years in the Army, and was clearly used to work, who said:
"They interviewed me and made me sign a 'Back to Work' plan which said 'Find accommodation'. I gave up signing and survived on hand-outs for a while, then I got a portering job. It wasn't easy, getting up at 5.30 every morning and going to the station to clean myself up for work".
One in five of those who are actually roofless have no income, which suggests that the benefit system is missing them already. Under this Bill I believe that it will miss them a great deal more. Until it is possible to have deposits on the Social Fund when you open new leases, it will be very hard to get out of that situation.

1143
We have a problem which is already bad and which this Bill exacerbates. There should be some process of consultation before this clause, which was not debated in the other place, passes into law without anybody thinking about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If we accept the noble Earl's argument it would mean that the provisions in Schedule 5 of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976 would remain. They require the Secretary of State to provide directly run resettlement units. There are now only two such units remaining—one in Glasgow (outside Glasgow, in fact) and one in Leeds. Neither are housed in suitable buildings. We intend that both those units will be closed by April 1996 and be replaced by more suitable facilities.
Through the good works of the Resettlement Agency, our policy over a number of years has been to disengage from the direct management of resettlement units. We do not believe that we should be in the business of managing such units. That policy has been widely welcomed, not least by the organisations which provide resettlement places. There are now more places available to people who need resettlement and there has been a huge improvement in their quality.
In 1989 we set up the agency with the main aim of disengaging the Government from the running of those resettlement units. Eight units have been replaced by more modern facilities. Eleven former units are now managed by voluntary organisations and the two remaining units, with the enactment of this clause, will also be replaced by better and more modern facilities. The agency currently provides or funds over 4,100 beds, makes grants to almost 100 separate organisations and over 200 projects and we spent around £22 million on grants to voluntary organisations and local authorities in the last financial year.
I think that perhaps the noble Earl has missed the significance of the phrase "without a settled way of life". The help given by the agency and the voluntary bodies that I mentioned goes beyond the confines of homelessness.
The aim of resettlement is not limited to securing temporary or permanent accommodation. We require organisations not only to provide accommodation but to help individuals to cope with permanent accommodation. Various forms of help are offered—training in life skills and helping to secure health care. I can understand why the noble Earl has put down an amendment to probe what we are doing but I can assure him that the situation we envisage in the future under the new system, with the voluntary bodies, local authorities and others providing this kind of work, will be better than what we have had heretofore with the department trying to do it with its own hand. I am sorry for my abbreviated reply. I hope that that assures the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: I am very grateful for that reply. I shall not debate it now but I should be grateful if the Minister could answer two questions. Can he tell me that Schedule 5 funding will continue? Can he tell me that
1144
the full rigour of this Bill, and especially the appearance clause, will not be applied to the homeless as it is to the others?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I can assure the noble Earl on both points. As far as I understand the second one, anything to do with looks or clothes does not come into it when it comes to the organisations to which we shall be paying grant taking in people who need the kind of resettlement help they provide. As to the noble Earl's first question, we shall continue to do the work we have set our hand to do so far as concerns paying grants to these voluntary organisations.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 178A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Insolvency
(".—(1) In section 71 of the Administration Act (overpayments), after subsection (10) insert—
"(10A) Where—

(a) a jobseeker's allowance is payable to a person from whom any amount is recoverable as mentioned in subsection (8) above; and

(b) that person is subject to a bankruptcy order,

a sum deducted from that benefit under that subsection shall not be treated as income of his for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
(10B) Where—

(a) a jobseeker's allowance is payable to a person from whom any amount is recoverable as mentioned in subsection (8) above; and

(b) the estate of that person is sequestrated,

a sum deducted from that benefit under that subsection shall not be treated as income of his for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."
(2) In section 78 of the Administration Act (recovery of social fund awards), after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where—

(a) a jobseeker's allowance is payable to a person from whom an award is recoverable under subsection (3) above; and

(b) that person is subject to a bankruptcy order,

a sum deducted from that benefit under subsection (2) above shall not be treated as income of his for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
(3B) Where—

(a) a jobseeker's allowance is payable to a person from whom an award is recoverable under subsection (3) above; and

(b) the estate of that person is sequestrated,

a sum deducted from that benefit under subsection (2) above shall not be treated as income of his for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.".").
The noble Lord said: This new clause will enable the recovery of overpayments of social security from jobseeker's allowance paid to bankrupt people. The clause provides that any such amounts deducted from jobseeker's allowance payable to a bankrupt person are not treated as income for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Thus creditors would be prevented from accessing these sums.
The Government consider that it is not right to stop recovering overpayments of benefit and social fund loans from current benefit just because a person has been declared bankrupt. The clause also ensures that there is equity between bankrupt persons and other people who have money deducted from their benefit for the same reasons. Without these procedures persons who are bankrupt will be more favourably treated than others receiving benefit. Nevertheless, there are maximum limits on the rates of deductions which can be made from income-related benefit to prevent hardship arising. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Carter: Can the Minister confirm that in effect this makes the Government a preferential creditor in the situation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government would not be a preferential creditor in regard to any other assets but they can continue to take off the benefits still being paid what that person owes them due to a social fund payment or some other overpayment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I wish to ask a question on this issue. It is so late that I can do no more than ask a very broad question and give notice that we shall take this matter up at later stages of the Bill. When one reads Clause 29 one is bound to say that, added to what is already a chilling Bill, one now sees provision for inspectors. It is very difficult to see quite what inspectors are meant to do. According to Clause 29, they are supposed,
"to examine, either alone or (if he thinks fit)"—
presumably, the inspector thinks fit and not the person being investigated—
"any matters arising under this Act on which he may reasonably require information".
In certain circumstances, they would have access to private dwelling houses. In all other provisions they will have access to any premises liable to inspection. The issue about dwellinghouses arises if it is thought that there is a trade or business being conducted in them, but they do not have to have any evidence to bear out why they think that. I find the whole of Clause 29 profoundly disturbing. At this stage I can only ask the Minister the purpose of this inspection and what the inspectors are meant to be doing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Powers of inspection have existed in social security law for a long time, with the use of inspectors a key part in protecting the benefits system from abuse. In the main, Clause 29 carries forward provisions which have existed for many years. Will the noble Baroness accept that I shall study what she has said and write to her in as much detail as I can about the issues she has raised and copy the letter to the Leaders of the other parties?
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 181 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 183A to 183F:
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("by virtue of regulations under") and insert ("under regulations made by virtue of').
Page 30, line 11, leave out from ("allowance") to end of line 12 and insert ("(a "transitional allowance")—

(i) of such a kind,

(ii) for such period,

(iii) of such an amount, and

(iv) subject to such conditions,

as may be determined in accordance with the regulations;").
Page 30, line 12, at end insert:
("(bb) for a person's continuing entitlement to a transitional allowance to be determined by reference to such provision as may be made by the regulations;").
Page 30, line 13, leave out from ("a") to end of line 14 and insert ("transitional allowance").
Page 30, line 15, leave out from ("a") to end of line 16 and insert ("transitional allowance").
Page 30, line 29, leave out from ("that") to ("allowance") in line 31, and insert ("the rate of a contribution-based transitional").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 183A is a purely technical amendment and its purpose is simply to correct an inaccuracy in the drafting. Before I go to the others, it is our normal practice to make transitional arrangements to protect existing claimants when changes are made to the benefits system. We intend to apply that principle to people in receipt of unemployment benefit and income support at the point of change to the jobseeker's allowance.
Amendments Nos. 183B, 183D and 183E ensure that the term "transitional allowance" is used with reference to payments of jobseeker's allowance made under the transitional arrangements. We consider that this improves the clarity of the drafting by clearly identifying where the payment of jobseeker's allowance is made. Amendment No. 183F similarly provides that, where a person meets the conditions for contribution-based JSA, then any payment under the

1147
transitional arrangements shall be "contribution-based transitional allowances". These amendments provide for the regulations to be tailored to meet the transitional arrangements to bring these proposals into effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On this side of the Committee we had prepared a 20-minute speech on these very technical amendments, but given the extreme lateness of the hour we shall reserve our right to comment on them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

  Iraq: Hostages
  Iraq: Hostages
  Mr. Martin Blaiklock
  Mr. Martin Blaiklock
  Chernobyl
  Chernobyl
  IAEA: Budget
  IAEA: Budget
  Marine Safety: Steering Committee Report
  Marine Safety: Steering Committee Report
  European Legislative Proposals
  European Legislative Proposals
  Press Passes to Palace of Westminster
  Press Passes to Palace of Westminster
  Ordnance Survey Executive Agency Framework Document
  Ordnance Survey Executive Agency Framework Document
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Defence R & D
  Defence R & D
  Divorce Laws Reform Proposals
  Divorce Laws Reform Proposals
  Marriage Guidance and Research Organisations: Funding
  Marriage Guidance and Research Organisations: Funding
  Land Registry, Public Record Office and Public Trust Office Targets
  Land Registry, Public Record Office and Public Trust Office Targets